Sitting of 13 November 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  The Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill was, according to Order, read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Nursery Education
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure on nursery education for the years 1960–61, 1965–66, 1967–68 and 1968–69, respectively; and what plans he has for expansion in the coming year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): Expenditure on nursery schools by local authorities in England and Wales rose from £· million in 1960–61 to £·million in 1965–66, £· million in 1967–68 and £· million in 1968–69. Figures for expenditure on nursery classes are not available. 10,000 additional nursery places—mostly in nursery classes—in deprived areas have been included in the first two phases of the urban programme this year, at a cost of nearly £3 million.
    Mr. Moonman: I am grateful for that information which, in part, is most encouraging. Does not my hon. Friend feel that while the fact that one child in nine in the 3 to 5 age group goes to nursery school is depressing enough, the fact that there is uneven distribution throughout the country so that in London the administrative county has 68 places per
    586
    1,000 and Lancashire has only 27 places per 1,000 demands serious attention?
    Miss Lestor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I would only add to my original answer that we are aware of the uneven distribution and that this is a matter of concern to us. However, we accept the Plowden recommendation that expansion in the nursery school sphere, the first expansion for many years, should start in the deprived areas. We are all aware that one can find deprived children in areas which are not obviously deprived; and, clearly, we want in future to try to secure nursery school education for all children.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Is it known what proportion the 10,000 new places to be made available represent of the ascertained need for nursery school places in the deprived areas?
    Miss Lestor:I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed answer off the cuff. If he will table a Question I will get the information for him.

    Guildford School of Art
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Education to institute a detailed inquiry into the Guildford School of Art.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Education and Science to institute an inquiry into Guildford College of Art.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerald Fowler): My right hon. Friend's statutory powers to hold an inquiry under the present law and the limitations on them were described in detail by my predecessor in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on 30th April—[Vol. 782, cols. 247–9.] We have no proposals for further legislation at present.
    Mr. Moonman: Certainly my Questions will be as consistent as those answers. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Select Committee has drawn attention

    587
    to what is a public scandal? Would he try to arrange some consultation with the Department of Employment and Productivity in an effort to help the employment position of the staff, which is quite disgraceful?
    Mr. Fowler: It is a little hard to describe the present statutory position as a public scandal. Local education authorities have certain responsibilities and it is important that we should not deprive them of those responsibilities without due consideration.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that this issue will not lie down until his Department does something about it? While I congratulate him on his new appointment, may I ask him to say why, if the Government could inquire into a private firm like Bristol Siddeley as the result of a Select Committee's Report, they cannot inquire into a publicly-financed body in such an utterly scandalous case as this?
    Mr. Fowler: The reason we cannot inquire into it is perfectly simple and has been stated time and again. There are no statutory powers to do so. I must insist that we in this country have a system that has grown up over the years by which responsibility for educational provision is shared among a number of bodies. There may be a case for change, but it would be unwise to make changes on the basis of a particular event in a particular place.

    Schools, Dorset
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many places have been provided in new schools in Dorset in the last year, or reprovided in new accommodation; and how this compares with the national average.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): 1,860; the national total was 365,000.
    Mr. Digby: While recognising the preoccupation of the Government with the fast-growing areas, at any rate in some respects, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady is aware how bad some of our school buildings are in Dorset and
    588
    that she always seems to be putting us at the end of a queue?
    Miss Bacon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that my right hon. Friend has today invited local education authorities to submit proposals for a continuous and systematic review of improvements and replacements of old schools, beginning in 1971–72, when about £15 million will be available for the purpose.

    Youth Leaders
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to assist local authorities to recruit and to retain youth leaders who, although not formally qualified, have demonstrated by their work and experience their suitability for vacant posts in this field.
    Miss Lestor: The terms of employment of youth leaders are agreed between the employing bodies and the staff associations concerned and are embodied in "The Sixth Report of the Joint Negotiating Committee for Youth Leaders and Community Centre Wardens", issued in June this year. In addition to formal qualifications, the agreement allows the recognition for qualified leadership of such other qualifications in individual cases as the Committee and my right hon. Friend may approve from time to time. Recognition under this clause is given in cases which allow for the maintenance of professional standards.
    Mr. Fortescue: I should also like to congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Is she aware that, in Liverpool and, no doubt, many other places, there is a grave shortage of youth leaders and that men and women are coming forward who have no formal qualifications but who, by their experience, are eminently suitable to do this very difficult work, but that difficulties are being placed in their way because the local authorities cannot claim from central Government the necessary grant in aid to help to pay them?
    Miss Lestor: Perhaps I could tell the hon. Gentleman, first, that 16 applications for recognition under that part of the negotiating machinery which takes into account suitability rather than qualifications were received and four of these

    589
    were approved. We are very much aware of the maldistribution of youth leaders in various parts of the country and of course the whole question of the youth service is now being discussed by the Department.

    Selection
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the minimum age at which within the system of State education he is prepared to accept selection on the basis of academic ability for the purpose of determining at which educational institution a student shall continue his or her studies.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Edward Short): It is the Government's policy that children of school age should not be segregated in different schools as a result of selection based on ability or aptitude.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, a year ago, he said that he was out to abolish selection at the age of 11, yet he accepts it for university entry purposes at 17 to 18? Can he not say whether there is not a point between those ages at which selection on grounds of ability is satisfactory to him?
    Mr. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is a bit behind the times. He will have noticed that we have set up a number of polytechnics which are comprehensive institutions of higher education. I myself share the view of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology that, eventually, we will have comprehensive universities as well.

    Secondary Schools, Kingston-upon-Thames
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will now approve the necessary work on the two secondary schools in the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which was previously approved by him and in respect of which he subsequently withdrew approval.
    Miss Bacon: No, Sir. The reasons why I am unable to include these two projects in the major school building programme have already been explained to the right hon. Gentleman and the circumstances have not changed.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that her right hon. Friend thinks that he will have enough funds available to provide for comprehensive universities, does not the right hon. Lady think that it might be possible for him to find money for two schools which he and his authorities approved over two years ago?
    Miss Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he raised this on an Adjournment debate and that we had a very long discussion. I was able to show then that there was no overall shortage of places in the Borough of Kingston. In any case, even if it had been allowed on other grounds, we asked Kingston to show how these schools would be compatible with a reorganisation scheme of secondary education. As yet, we have not heard from them.

    Teachers' Salaries
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current position regarding the claim by teachers for salary increases; what is the estimated annual cost to public funds in meeting the claim in full; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what estimate he has made of the amount needed in a General Grant (Increase) Order to cover the present claim of the teachers for a salary increase.
    Mr. Edward Short: I estimate that the teachers' claim of a flat-rate increase of £135 from 1st April, 1970, would add approximately £44 million or 8½ per cent to the salaries bill in 1970–71 for full-time qualified teachers in maintained primary and secondary schools. This would be in addition to the £33 million which was the cost of the 7⅛per cent. award on 1st April this year. Negotiations on the claim are still in progress in the Burnham Committee.
    The question of a Rate Support Gram (Increase) Order will be for consideration in the light of whatever settlement is eventually reached. For 1970–71 the appropriate grant percentage is 57 per cent.
    Mr. Biffen: In respect of the initiatives which the right hon. Gentleman himself

    591
    is able to take in this very unhappy situation, would he reflect upon the fact that emphasis on a flat-rate increase will do nothing to bring about a more satisfactory career structure in the teaching profession?
    Mr. Short: The structure of the salary scales is for the Burnham Committee, of course, and not for me.
    Mr. Marks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us who strongly support the need for a pay increase for teachers, especially at the younger end, nevertheless strongly disapprove of the unions' encouragement of wildcat half-day and one-day strikes, because we think that this is harmful to the teachers' case, to the children and particularly to working mothers? Will he take note of that?
    Mr. Short: I take note of what my hon. Friend says, although he will not expect me to comment on it. I am, of course, a party to the negotiations which are still going on. All I would point out is that, on 1st April this year, the teachers signed an agreement, freely negotiated, which gave them 7⅛ per cent. increase. They were recently offered very nearly 3½ per cent. increase, so this will have been almost an 11 per cent. increase in one year. I should not have called that derisory. However, I do not want to comment on what is going on at the moment.
    Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two quick points? First, has he yet indicated to the management panel of Burnham a global sum within which negotiations must continue? I am not asking him what the sum is but only whether he has indicated a global sum. Second, will he condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any sudden strike which puts the safety of the children in jeopardy because parents have not been able to make alternative arrangements?
    Mr. Short: First of all, may I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and hope that we will have many passages across this Table? I am sure that she would not expect me to comment on the first point which she raised. On the second, I would very much deprecate any strike which put any children in danger or caused difficulty for parents of the kind she mentioned.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that some of us, myself in particular, deplore the fact that—apart from teachers going on strike —the general body of teachers who are qualified and undergo extensive training are underpaid? When dustmen and others, because they go on strike, can obtain substantial increases, why should not teachers receive salary increases consistent with their qualifications?
    Mr. Short:As I have said, if the teachers had accepted the initial offer of the management panel of the Burnham Committee, they would have had nearly an 11 per cent. increase this year.
    Mr. Montgomery: Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that someone's attention should be directed to the need to change the salary structure and to try to ensure that those who stay in the profession for a very long time get the rewards to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Short: Salary structure is a matter for the Burnham Committee and it is examined every two years when they negotiate new scales

    Overseas Students (Boarding Costs)
    Mr. Howieasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will withdraw circular F1/56/02, Boarding Charges for Students Coming From Outside England and Wales who Reside in Hostels Attached to Further Education Establishments.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not think that local education authorities in England and Wales should bear the boarding costs of students who come from elsewhere.
    Mr. Howie: Yes, but would my hon. Friend not agree that this circular not only discriminates against "foreigners" as they are called, but also between students in universities and those in polytechnics?
    Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. There are different arrangements for the different sectors of higher education. I cannot agree that this circular to which my hon. Friend refers discriminates against foreigners. The circular, which was issued in May, 1968, did not enunciate any new principle but reminded authorities that, since 1955, the policy had been to charge the full economic cost of boarding for

    593
    students from outside England and Wales.
    Mrs. Ewing: Are Scottish students treated as foreigners under the circular? I had one case at a college reported to me in which this was so. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland English students are not treated as foreigners for the purpose of deciding what money they should receive?
    Mr. Fowler: There are separate arrangements. Scottish students who attend courses at further education establishments in England and Wales and live in the college hostel have the difference between the fee charged to the home student and the full economic cost met by the Scottish Education Department if they are holders of awards under the students' allowance scheme. Far from showing that Scotsmen are foreigners, the arrangements show that there is no discrimination against foreigners in that Scotsmen and Irishmen come into the same category as those who come from overseas.

    School Building, Bishop Auckland
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the value of new school building completed in the Bishop Auckland constituency during the last three years.
    Miss Bacon: The value was £284,000 between October, 1966, and September, 1969.
    Mr. Boyden: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the programme in this area so that the James I Grammar School, which is being converted to a comprehensive school, may have a good start?
    Miss Bacon: In addition to the work already completed, the value of work under construction is £233,000, and other work for 1969–70 and 1970–71 amounts to nearly £200,000, in addition to which in my hon. Friend's constituency a further amount totalling £542,000 will ne available out of the money referable to the raising of the school leaving age. I understand that the work which my hon. Friend contemplates should be finished to enable this school to go comprehensive by 1973.
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if his Department will take steps to commission the making of a film for use in secondary schools, illustrating the dangers and ill effects of drug taking.
    Miss Bacon: Education on drug dependence is at present being considered by the Health Education Council, which is giving particular attention to the relative value of various media, including films, and I shall give urgent attention to its findings.
    Mr. Hunt: In the meantime, would not a film of this kind be a useful way of drawing the attention of teenages in a vivid and effective manner to the dangers of drug taking and to the physical and mental disintegration of those who become addicted, particularly to hard drugs? Will she do everything she can to encourage the early making of such a film, which could be set in this country?
    Miss Bacon: We ourselves cannot make the film, but I agree that this is an important and urgent matter. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I shall take any necessary steps to try to prevent drug taking in schools.
    Mrs. Renee Short: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that, apart from the question of children's health, there is a serious and urgent need to give help and guidance to both parents and teachers in recognising the signs of addiction in school children? The hon. Gentleman's suggestion might well help in this direction, too.
    Miss Bacon: The recent booklet which we published had a chapter on that very subject for teachers, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will issue a circular to education authorities about the dangers of drug taking.
    Miss Bacon: Advice is already given in "The Handbook of Health Education" published last year and is available also from Her Majesty's Inspectorate and my Department's medical

    595
    officers. I am considering whether further steps are necessary.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Now that drugs have become a major problem among young people, that is not really sufficient. Does the right hon. Lady realise that many headmasters in my constituency, for example, say that they do not know what to tell their pupils, in particular about the dangers of cannabis'? They find the present body of knowledge and advice terribly vague and they long for a clear directive from the Department whidh could give them guidelines at least on what to teach their pupils.
    Miss Bacon: It may be that the chapter in the booklet to which I referred has not been read by all teachers. The very advice for which the hon. Gentleman asks is given in the booklet, but I shall, as I have said, see whether anything further is necessary specifically on the subject of drugs, apart from that book.

    Pre-School Playgroups Association
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his Department's support for the Pre-School Playgroups Association.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will extend the period of the grant, at present limited to three years, towards the salary and expenses of the national advisers on Pre-School Playgroups.
    Miss Lestor: The Department's grant to the Pre-School Playgroups Association towards its administrative costs and the provision of an advisory service will be increased from £3,000 this year to £3,500 in 1970–71.
    Mr. Pardoe: In view of the immensely valuable work which the asosciation does and the need for full-time professional help in organising valuable voluntary efforts, does the hon. Lady consider that that is a sufficiently generous increase?
    Miss Lestor: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that I am a full supporter of the playgroup movement. At present, the whole future of playgroups and the under-fives is under discussion. The
    596
    Plowden Report recommended that local education authorities should be empowered to aid playgroups, and the Seebohm Report, more recently, recommended that playgroups should be the responsibility of the new Social Services Department. We are considering those recommendations. What changes we can make in our aid in the future will depend on the outcome of the discussions which we hold on the recommendations.
    Mr. Hill: What is the hon. Lady doing to encourage the provision of training courses for people who work with playgroups at different levels of qualification, from N.N.E.B. downwards?
    Miss Lestor: One of the difficulties regarding the playgroup movement is that it is not really the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, and that people running playgroups register with the local health authority; but we encourage the setting up of training courses, and many colleges and institutions in various parts of the country are already instituting small or sometimes fairly large training courses for people who wish to run playgroups. I regard this as important.
    Mr. Snow: My hon. Friend's work in this matter is recognised throughout the House. Is she aware that in many of the great overspill receiving areas, especially the West Midlands, it is difficult for playgroups to be started because of the lack of suitable accommodation'? Might not other Departments help in this matter?
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and also—I am sorry that I omitted to do so earlier—the other hon. Members who congratulated me on my appointment.
    I accept that there is that difficulty in the development of playgroups. Although local education authorities cannot make grants directly to playgroups, it is possible for them—and many do—to lend equipment and in some instances make accommodation available to the playgroup movement and to people who run playgroups. I hope that they will look into this further and try to renew and increase their efforts in that direction.

    Higher Education
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what

    597
    consultations he has had about the development of higher education in the 1970s; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hornbyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what consultations he is having about the organisation of higher education in the 1970s.
    Mr. Fowler: My predecessor recently discussed with the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals the development and organisation of higher education in the 1970s. I have it in mind to hold similar informal discussions with other interested parties in the coming months.
    Mr. Lane: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his translation to higher education.
    Does he agree that this would be an eminently suitable subject for a Green Paper in due course, which could be debated by the House, and will he keep in mind in particular, before the Government put proposals forward, the paramount importance in the universities of maintaining maximum academic freedom?
    Mr. Fowler: I take the hon. Gentleman's last point, and the answer is, "Of course". As for a Green Paper, we recognise that the U.G.C., the individual universities and the rest of higher education will need to know the Government's decisions in these matters in the course of the next year, and we shall consider publishing a Green Paper, a White Paper, or a White Paper with a greenish tinge.
    Mr. Hornby: Is it the Government's present intention that a similar proportion of the school leaving age group with the appropriate qualifications will continue to be able to have access to higher education places?
    Mr. Fowler: The difficulty with that question is that it is not entirely in the control of the Government. Admission to the maintained sector of higher education is almost certain to follow the present pattern, whatever the Government's decision. We certainly hope that provision can be made for people with the same qualifications as those at present
    598
    receiving higher education to continue to have higher education over the course of the next decade, but we have to recognise that there is a problem here because the numbers are likely to be very large.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new appointment. May I stress the concern of many of those in higher education about the workings of the so-called binary policy? In view of the findings of the recent Select Committee on higher education and the testimony of faith in the comprehensive university of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon, what modifications of the binary policy has the Department in mind?
    Mr. Fowler: I am familiar with my hon. Friend's interest in the matter, going back over many years. He should not get hooked on a name. We need a variety of institutions of higher education catering for a variety of needs and a variety of students, no two of whom are the same. I hope that we shall not see a hierarchy of esteem between institutions in higher education, but rather a variety of functions.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for improving the quality of teacher training.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into colleges of education and publish the report and recommendations.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for improving the quality of teacher training.
    Mr. Edward Short: In recent years colleges of education have nearly trebled their output, extended the two-year course to three years and introduced a four-year course, leading to B.Ed. degree. These are substantial achievements. I regard many recent criticisms of the courses they offer as misconceived and based on inadequate evidence. The college themselves with the co-operation and advice of H.M. Inspectorate are constantly adapting and modifying their courses to make them more relevant to the changing

    599
    methods and patterns of organisation in schools. I am considering how best they can be assisted in this task. A general inquiry is among the possibilities but I am doubtful whether this would be the best course.
    Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the very real concern about this matter inside and outside the teaching profession, and keep in mind the desirability, as a first step, of a short but searching inquiry in which his Department might be able to take part?
    Mr. Short: It is one of the in things in education now to demand an inquiry into teacher training. There may be a case for looking at the relevance of the training to the changing methods and changing organisation in the schools. What I am very anxious to do is not to go back to the sort of situation we had 50 years ago, when teachers were turned out as craftsmen, but badly educated. Colleges have today both to train teachers and to educate them.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is being increasingly put forward by those who do not wish to take a militant stand about it?
    Mr. Short: It is put forward by a great many people. I examine all the evidence, and there is not all that much evidence about. I think that the young teachers coming out are probably better than they have ever been.
    Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the distinction which exists now between the 20 per cent. or so of students in colleges who are going on to a four-year course and a B.Ed. and those only doing a three-year course is a divisive and unsatisfactory element in the college? If he will not have an inquiry, what proposals has he for increasing the number of B.Ed. students within the colleges until it is 100 per cent.?
    Mr. Short: I did not say that I would not have an inquiry. I said very carefully that this was one of the things I was looking at. It would be wrong to impose on the colleges, after all they have achieved in the past five years, and the considerable upset they have had, an enormous inquiry which would take three
    600
    or four years and be out of date by the time it was published. That is all I said about that.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: Might not at least a contribution to the discussion be made if the Select Committee were encouraged to go on with its proposals, as it has reported to the House, for an inquiry into part of this subject? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his considerable influence to ensure that the Committee is set up again speedily?
    Mr. Short: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will read what the hon. Gentleman has said. If he does not, I will make sure that it is called to his attention.

    Select Committee on Education and Science (Report)
    Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for implementing the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee on Education and Science on universities and colleges and their relations with students.
    Mr. Edward Short: This Report makes some very far-reaching suggestions for changing the organisation and government of higher education. These suggestions will no doubt be studied by a great many people. The hon. Members will not expect me to announce a new policy or major legislation on these matters today.
    Mr. van Straubenzee: While the House would naturally accept the Secretary of State's last words, may I ask whether he has been able at least to give a preliminary costing to the Select Committee's Report, with particular reference to bringing a common level to students' union grants?
    Mr. Short: I think that the Select Committee made 58 recommendations altogether. A great many are not for the Government but for the universities and colleges. However, we are looking at them very carefully. We have not done the costing, but the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that what we are costing is the 156 recommendations that have come during the past 12 months from the party opposite for increased expenditure.

    Newly-Qualified Teachers (Employment)
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many teachers who left colleges of education in the summer are still without suitable employment; and how many of these are primary and secondary trained.
    Mr. Edward Short: Exact figures are not available but it is likely that very few newly-qualified teachers who are willing to go where the jobs are can still be without suitable employment and that this applies even to immobile teachers. Further vacancies will, of course, occur in January.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply will give some satisfaction to those of us who did not believe the propaganda that there would be 5,000 teachers looking for jobs at the beginning of this term? As this may nevertheless have had a slightly depressing effect on recruitment of teachers, will my right hon. Friend continue his efforts to attract more suitable students to the teaching profession, particularly to produce the nursery teachers for the expansion of nursery education which many of us want to see?
    Mr. Short: I am glad my hon. Friend said that, because the rumours, certainly in many cases malicious, about the number of teachers who would be unemployed both last year and this year, which I said were unfounded and have proved to be so, certainly had an influence on the recruitment of teachers. I hope the fact that all the teachers have obtained jobs this year and last year, and will do so next year, will encourage any young people who want to come into teaching to do so.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the figures for Wales?
    Mr. Snort: Not without notice.

    Secondary and Comprehensive Schools (G.C.E. Examinations)
    Mrs. Renee Shortasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many O and A level passes in the General Certificate of Education examination were obtained by pupils in secondary schools in 1963 and 1968, respectively;
    602
    and how many of these were obtained by pupils in comprehensive schools.
    Miss Bacon: The number of G.C.E. Olevel passes obtained by school-leavers in maintained secondary schools rose from 750,550 in 1962–63 to 860,220 in 1967–68; the number of A-level passes from 104,720 to 162,100. In comprehensive schools alone, the comparable figures were, for A-level from 35,070 to 150,040; for A-level from 3,720 to 27,430.
    Mrs.Short: I am very grateful for that reply. Does not the evidence my right hon. Friend has put forward damn for ever the flat-earth opposition of the principle of comprehensive education?
    Miss Bacon: I agree

    Latin
    Mr. Huntasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek powers to prevent the universities from requiring an O level General Certificate of Education pass in Latin as a condition for a university place.
    Mr. Fowler:No, Sir, but I hope universities will keep their entrance requirements under constant review.
    Mr. Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is totally absurd, for example, that a student wanting to read music at Bristol, Durham or Exeter cannot do so unless he or she has an O-level pass in Latin? Is not the universities' continued insistence on this dreary and archaic language—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—a most undesirable form of academic sadism?
    Mr. Fowler: As, I think, one of the better Latinists in the House, I must defend the language against the charge of being dreary and uninteresting. But, although this is a matter entirely for the individual university authorities, I hope that they will give due and serious consideration to whether Latin is a requisite for particular courses. It may well be for some English or modern language courses, but I think that in many areas they could have another look at this.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that not all hon.

    603
    Members on this side of the House would endorse my hon. Friend's description of the Latin language?
    Mr. Fowler: Nor on this side.

    Housing the Arts Fund
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many projects have received or been promised financial aid from the Housing the Arts Fund; what is the total commitment from the fund to date; and what is the comparable commitment by local authorities and the private sector.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): The Arts Council has made or promised grants totalling £2,250.000 to 109 projects. The total cost of these projects is about £10,500,000 so that the contribution from local authority and private sources amounts to about £8,250,000.
    Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the great effort made by the Government in this respect. Is my right hon. Friend entirely satisfied that sufficient is being given by local authorities and private funds?
    Miss Lee: Of course I am not, but it is remarkable that £81 million has come from local authorities and private sources.

    The Theatre (Report)
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects the Arts Council's Report on the Theatre to be published.
    Miss Jennie Lee: I understand that the Report is now in draft form and may be ready for submission to the Arts Council in December. It is for the Council to decide whether and when it should be published.
    Mr. Channon: Does not the right hon. Lady agree that this is a matter of the greatest urgency? There have been long delays which have not been the fault of the Committee, but it is now urgent that we have this report.
    Miss Lee: Everyone is awaiting publication. It has been completed. There has been a good deal of work done, but we are now to receive it quite shortly.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not desirable that, while the report should certainly come as soon as possible, it should be comprehensive, adequate and fully considered before it is published?
    Miss Lee: I agree with that. That is part of the reason for the delay.

    Museums
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many museums have had to close recently for one or more days per week: and what were the reasons for these closings.
    Miss Jennie Lee: None of the national museums or galleries has had to do this So far as I am aware, no regional museum has closed for one or more days a week during the current financial year.
    Mr. Channon: Would not the right hon. Lady agree that in Birmingham, for example, this has had to be done? Is is not a sad state of affairs that some of the national museums have had to be partly closed for economic reasons on certain days in the week while some have had to be completely closed on one or mere days a week as a result of these measures? When we wish to encourage people to go to museums, is not this rather sad?
    Miss Lee: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read my reply in which I have specifically said that none of the national museums and no regional museums in the current financial year have to close in such a way. I understand that the branch museums of the Birmingham City Museum and Art Gallery were closed on Mondays during the last financial year, but that was the responsibility of the Birmingham Council and not of the Government.

    Qualified Teacher Status
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why the Burnham Committee has refused to accept licentiate membership of the Royal Institute of Chemistry as a qualification for teaching.
    Mr. Fowler: Conferment of qualified teacher status is not for the Burnham

    605
    Committee but for my right hon. Friend. I am not satisfied that licentiate membership represents a standard sufficient to confer eligibility for qualified teacher status.
    Mr. Hill: In view of the shortage of science teachers, which the hon. Gentleman himself has stressed, is it not desirable that people with these qualifications, which are recognised outside the Burnham Committee as equivalent to a pass degree, should not be deterred from remaining in teaching?
    Mr. Fowler: We accept that associate and graduate membership confers eligibility for qualified teacher status. What the Burnham Committee has refused to accept is that graduate membership of the Royal Institute of Chemistry should be regarded as the equivalent of a good honours degree for salary purposes.

    National Gallery (Grant)
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to increase the 15 per cent. increase in grant which has been allotted to the National Gallery for 1969–70.
    Miss Jennie Lee: The level of the annual purchase grant for the National Gallery for 1970–71 onwards, together with those for all the other national museums and galleries, is at present under consideration.
    Mr. Faulds: That answer gives me some pleasure, but will my right hon. Friend say definitely that this minimal grant this year will certainly be increased in future years?
    Miss Lee:My hon. Friend will not expect to make a statement on a matter which is still under consideration.

    Museums and Art Galleries (Capital Development Grants)
    Mr. Fauldsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether he will provide capital development grants to provincial museums and art galleries for the improvement of display facilities and the modernisation of premises.
    Miss Jennie Lee: Provincial museums and art galleries are primarily a matter
    606
    for the local authorities and other local organisations responsible for them. I am very much concerned to encourage local interests to support their local museums and galleries in every possible way.
    Mr. Faulds: Whilst accepting the principle that local authorities are responsible for the arts, would my right hon. Friend not agree that she has already breached that principle as regards housing the arts. Why should she not extend that breach in this respect?
    Miss Lee: Museums and galleries have been a traditional responsibility of local authorities and local interests. Many of our theatres were in danger of closing down. The Housing the Arts Fund has made it possible, by a combined operation of central and local funds, to maintain or establish theatres which would otherwise not have been there.

    THOMAS A BECKET
    Mr. Crouchasked the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to commemorate the 800th anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Thomas à Becket.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The celebrations which might be appropriate are not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, Sir.
    Mr. Crouch: As the Prime Minister has power to make archbishops, and even martyrs on occasion, would he not consider this one of those rare opportunities for intervention to ensure that the memory of St. Thomas a Becket is commemorated by the issue of a special stamp, first class or even second class?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that this martyrdom is really a matter for joking, even by the hon. Member; he is aware of the great feeling about it still in Canterbury. The hon. Member will be aware that under legislation passed by the House the decision about issuing commemorative stamps is now a matter for the Post Office Board. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will get in touch with the chairman.
    Mr. Montgomery: Has the Prime Minister any intention of calling a quick General Election and so ending the present martyrdom of the British people?

    POPULATION
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will initiate an interdepartmental inquiry on the population problem of the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing at this stage to add to my reply to a Question by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) on 22nd May.—[Vol. 784, c. 657–9.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is a committee, I think of civil servants, studying this problem? Will a report be published in due course as a result of these investigations? Meanwhile, would he impress on his Ministers the danger of giving statistics to certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who use them to boost their own nefarious prejudices?
    The Prime Minister: As I made clear in answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in May, the inter-Departmental arrangements for a proper study of this question have been greatly improved. When something comes out of that study, that will be the time to consider what it would be right to publish.
    My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that certain surveys were taken in certain areas and many of the figures have been given in the House in answer to Questions and on demand to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen. I agree with my hon. Friend that, that being so, whatever interpretation, wrong or right, has been put on them, it would be right to make them generally available in the House.
    Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no population problem in Wales, but that there is a great depopulation problem, and that eight of the 13 counties in Wales have a smaller population today than they had in 1921?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of these problems, which are not confined to Wales. There has been continuing migration from Scotland—though the position is now improving—and from certain rural areas in England. I assure the hon. Member that if we had taken action on the policies which he has suggested, depopulation and migration would have been much more serious.

    CHANCELLOR OF WEST GERMANY (VISIT)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will now invite the Chancellor of West Germany to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister: I certainly hope to meet Herr Brandt before long. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be seeing him in Bonn tomorrow.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the Prime Minister convey to the new Chancellor, at least on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, our congratulations? Will he call his attention to the relative defence burden of our two nations, as outlined by Mr. Catherwood on 9th November, with a view to obtaining further relief of the defence offset costs which we bear in Germany?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that not only on this side of the House but in all parts of the House hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have had the pleasure of dealing with Herr Brandt will wish to offer congratulations and best wishes to him in the very important task which he has taken on. Defence burdens have been a continuing problem and have been frequently discussed in defence debates in the House. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already discussed mutual defence problems with Herr Helmut Schmidt, the new German Minister of Defence.
    Mr. Lane: Would the right hon. Gentleman also convey to Herr Brandt how welcome to many of us is the stress he has already laid on the desirability of British entry into the Common Market?
    The Prime Minister: There has never been any question about Herr Brandt's views on this matter and the vigour with which he has been pressing this within the Six.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for all appropriate Ministers to commence studies of

    609
    alternative trading options to the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) on 22nd May.—[Vol. 784, c. 653.]
    Mr. Marten: The Prime Minister must agree that the so-called costs of staying out of the Common Market cannot really in all honesty be properly assessed without an assessment also of the benefits of remaining out? That being so, should not the Government set up a study of alternatives such as a free trade area between the Six and the Seven, particularly if the Common Market negotiations prove to be barren?
    The Prime Minister: I think it was with the general support of the House that I called for this new statistical appraisal of all the implications of the costs of joining the Common Market. When the figures are available they will he given to the House. On the question of alternative schemes, the hon. Gentleman has placed N.A.F.T.A. and other schemes before us, and now he is talking about a free trade area. We have the Treaty of Rome to go on with the other calculations and what has been decided in the Six, but it would be impossible to make any assessment of what the relative rates of tariff and duty and agricultural arrangements would be in any hypothetical free trade area between the Six and E.F.T.A. If there is anything meaningful that we can get on this I would be very ready to make it available to the House, but it cannot be studied with the same degree of accuracy, given the spread of assumptions. as the study which is now in being.
    Mr. Cant: Would my right hon. Friend also suggest to supporters of N.A.F.T.A. on both sides of the House that the time factor is important? Would he also remind them that the Kennedy Round, which covered only partial changes in tariffs, took four years and that we must be into Europe on the right terms long before that?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, given the right terms, as my hon. Friend has correctly said. Certainly the Kennedy Round, which was a pretty remarkable achievement—there were a very large
    610
    number of countries involved—took a very long time and we are still a long way from seeing it fully implemented in practice between the different trading countries.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Prime Minister what proposals he has to discuss with the Prime Ministers of Eire and Denmark the problems of adapting their respective agricultural industries to the requirements of the Common Market.
    The Prime Minister: None. Sir. We are in regular contact with both Governments on matters of common interest through the normal channels.
    Mr. Biffen: As exchange rate changes in the franc and Deutschmark have put the Common Market agricultural policies into such disarray, are these not exactly the circumstances in which we should be seen to be pressing for a European agricultural policy which allowed a much greater degree of national initiative in matters such as foodstuffs and agriculture? Should we not be consulting with those countries mentioned in this Question, both of which have substantial domestic agriculture?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can assume that the Danish and Irish Governments, in view of their very substantial position in agricultural world, are taking as close an interest in the Common Market Agricultural policy as we are. If he wants it to be seen that we are having discussions with them. the Anglo-Irish Economic Committee is meeting today in Dublin and the AngloDanish Liaison Committee met in London on 30th September. Furthermore, my right hon. and noble Friend visited Copenhagen for talks with members of the Danish Government from 8th to 10th September. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we are maintaining close contact on all these matters.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Did the right hon. Gentleman observe that yesterday in Brussels the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, namely, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) is reported as saying—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No quotations in supplementary questions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary alluded to joining the Common Market as being like having an affair with an elephant? As the hon. Member for West Bromwich is one of Her Majesty's Government's Ministers and portraying Government policy in this statement, can the Prime Minister say whether it is his intention to go slow on the Common Market application, in view of agricultural difficulties, for the rest of this Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: These illogical analogies create certain difficulties, and I have no personal experience of these matters. I noticed reports in the Press, but I have not been in touch with my hon. Friend. One question I thought of taking up with him was whether he had not got the period of gestation for elephants wrong.
    An Hon. Member: Eighteen months.
    The Prime Minister: I thought that it was two years but the report seemed to suggest that it was longer. I shall naturally want to sort out with my hon. Friend whether he has got his biological facts accurate.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) yesterday, or reported to have been made by him, about falling in love with an elephant, are we to understand that in the assessment my right hon. Friend has in hand he will import sexual aspects of the problem?
    The Prime Minister: As was made clear when we last debated these matters, the Government are to study all relevant aspects of the entire situation. I am not aware that my hon. Friend was particularly bringing the concept of love into these elephantine relations.

    EXPORTS
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the various Government Departments involved in increasing exports abroad; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Fraser: Do not today's trade figures, including the narrative upon them, do credit to the Government's efforts to increase exports? Is the Prime Minister aware that there are still areas of the world where there are unexploited markets and where long delivery dates mean that there could be much more growth inside British industry? Will the Government make it clear to both sides of industry that opportunities for growth exist'?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and with the obvious fact arising from his question, that, whatever the great improvement in our exports, no one is complacent and we want to go on improving them still further. That is why, on delivery dates and productive capacity, we have stressed the need for the fact that any domestic expansion must be export-led.

    BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Technology and the Treasury with regard to solving the balance of payments problem; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Davidson: Since co-ordination happily exists between Government Departments, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the same co-ordination extends to leading members of the Opposition in view of their repeated attempts to denigrate the recent marked improvement in the balance of trade position by casting doubt on the accuracy of the figures?
    The Prime Minister: I think that they are fully co-ordinated; they are united in only one thing and that is to knock every improvement in Britain's economic position. One of my hon. Friends referred to the figures published today. We generally agree in this House that we base ourselves not on a single month but on three months. The latest figures for the last three months, including those published today, show exports of £620 million as against £579 million three months ago. These figures will be £609 million and £589 million after allowing for factors

    613
    affecting the recording. Going back to the £620 million, we are making that against £536 million six months ago, £548 million a year ago and £356 million five years ago.
    Mr. Lubbock: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the observations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology concerning the co-ordination between Government Departments over the export and re-export of nuclear reactors'? In view of the enormous potential market, will he see that the reply of the Minister of Technology to these observations is expedited?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Committee has done most valuable work. He will be aware of the extent to which the very thorough work done by it has affected Government thinking in this matter, as was shown by the statement of my right hon. Friend to the House during the summer, which very substantially accepts the basic proposals of the Select Committee. A great deal of work is still going on, and, as was stated in the Gracious Speech, we hope before long to be able to introduce legislation.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: As we are doing so well outside the Common Market, would it not be a wise precaution to withdraw the application to enter it unless by some mischance someone should take it up and act on it?
    The Prime Minister: What we have shown with these export figures, which are 57 per cent. up by value for the first ten months of 1964 and 33 per cent. up by volume for the first ten months of 1964, is that we are perfectly capable of holding our own with the competition within the Common Market and gain by it.
    Mr. Peyton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the concern which unites us on this side is to ensure that the credit for any progress made goes where it is due and is denied to an Administration which has done more to hamper this country than any other?
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware, and did not need the hon. Gentleman to tell me, what is the concern which unites the Opposition. Certainly it is right to pay tribute to those in in
    614
    dustry who have played their part in this, but, since we have heard nothing for five years from hon. Members opposite other than that industry could not flourish under this Government and that we could not get into a balance of payments surplus in a reasonably quick period, I hope that they now realise that industry and exports are doing a great deal better under this Government than they ever did under the Conservatives.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order does not arise at this stage.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: Would the Leader of the House please state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER.—SeCOnd Reading of the Customs (Import Deposits) Bill, and of the Police Bill.
TUESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Rent (Control of Increases) Bill.
Motions on the Gaming Clubs (Licensing) Regulations, 1969.
WEDNESDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER.— Second Reading of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill.
THURSDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER.— Supply [1st Allotted Day]:
Debate on a Motion to take note of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1968–69, and the related Treasury Minute.
FRIDAY, 21ST NOVEMBER.—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 24TH NOVEMBER.—Second Reading of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Bill, and of the Industrial Development (Ships) Bill.
Mr. Heath: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a further question about the provision of parliamentary papers, which is still thoroughly unsatisfactory? He will agree that it is the Government's

615
responsibility to provide parliamentary papers and the Treasury's responsibility to look after the running of the Stationery Office. What action are the Government taking to deal with this situation?
The Votes and Proceedings of the House arrived today in the Opposition Whips' Office marked, "Rush. Do not delay". We much appreciate this action which, apparently, has been taken by the Leader of the House, but the document arrived at noon today and is for last Tuesday. However much it has been rushed and not delayed, it is of no assistance to us now.
Would the right hon. Gentleman kindly deal with this matter and ensure that we get parliamentary papers on time and give an assurance that no business will be taken for which the papers are not available?
Mr. Peart:As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a statement on Tuesday on this matter. I understand that the situation concerning the industrial dispute is much better and that the men are not going slow. That is the latest information that I have.
Although that is not my responsibility as such, as Leader of the House I am naturally anxious to ensure that Members receive their papers. I recognise inconveniences have been caused and I will do all that I can do remedy them.
Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that assurance. As he says that there is no "go slow", can he give a firm assurance that in future all papers will arrive on time and that the backlog will he rapidly made up?
Mr. Peart: I cannot go beyond what I have said.
Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have tabled a Motion to allow the proceedings of the House to be broadcast on television? The Motion is to be debated on Friday next week, and because we have not received our Order Papers this not yet widely known.
Mr. Peart: I am aware of that. I am sure that the Motion will receive tremendous publicity.
Mr. Speaker:Order. No commercials.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman says that he cannot give an assurance that a proper supply of parliamentary papers will be resumed, will he undertake that no Committee stages of Bills, which involve heavy printing of Amendments, are taken until the supply of necessary papers for Members, such at HANSARD and the Order Book, has been properly restored?
Mr. Peart: I am informed that those responsible are trying to get the backlog made up. I hope that this will be satisfactory.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House has not had a specific debate on the tragic war Vietnam for several years and that there is strong opinion, at any rate on this side, that we should have an opportunity to question the Government and that they should state their policy because the President of the United States is for ever quoting the views of Western European countries, and of the United Kingdom on particular?
Mr. Peart: I am aware of the importance of the matter. There was the opportunity to debate specific foreign affairs during the debate on the Gracious Speech, but I will consider my hon. Friend's point sympathetically.
Mr. Tom Boardman: The Prime Minister has said from time to time that it is the Government's job to govern. Does not their inability to provide parliamentary papers prove their incompetence to do the job?
Mr. Peart: I thought that I answered that point. As Leader of the House, I am anxious that hon. Members should get their parliamentary papers.
Mrs. Renee Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, despite his favourable and helpful reply last week, there is great concern that for another week he has not announced a date when we can debate the proposals to reorganise the broadcasting services? In view of today's announcement in the Press about additional local radio stations, will he give the House an opportunity to debate this matter at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Peart: I said last week that I would note my hon. Friend's point carefully. It will not be debated this week or next week. However, I have noted it carefully.
Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the quite clear and specific question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter)? Will he give an assurance that the Committee stages of Bills will not he taken until we are up to date with our HANSARDS and Order Papers, which we should have?
Mr. Peart: I have nothing to add to what I said.
Mr. Rippon: The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything.
Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who gets agitated on other matters as well, will restrain himself. I am anxious not to say anything which could spoil improved industrial relations.
Mr. John Fraser: In view of the occasional loss of productive capacity on Fridays, can my right hon. Friend say whether it is possible to make sure that Fridays are filled up with business? Can he say anything about tomorrow?
Mr. Peart: I> should have thought that we could take all the stages of the Transport (London) Amendment Bill tomorrow.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the continuing measure of responsibility which the Government have for the civil war in Nigeria, may we have a debate on this matter as soon as possible?
Mr. Peart: I do not want to argue with the right hon. Gentleman about responsibility for the war. We have had several debates on it. I will consult my right hon. Friend to see whether there is need for a further debate.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Can my right hon. Friend say when the House will be given an opportunity to debate the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner, in view of the many proposals now being considered for extending the purview of officials of this nature?
Mr. Peart: I cannot find time for that next week. Many of these reports are
618
very important. I have to balance priorities as to time given to them on the Floor of the House, but I will look at this question.
Mr. Peyton: Will the Leader of the House consider finding time for a short debate next week when we can discuss the provision of parliamentary papers? This would afford him the opportunity of listening to our views on this subject and to the way in which the House of Commons has been mortified by the Government's failure. It would also give him the opportunity of explaining just what the purpose is in going on discussing last week's Order Paper.
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not now debating what the hon. Member is asking should be discussed in a debate. The hon. Member at present can ask for time for a debate.
Mr. Peyton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will explain why he is continuing to distribute last week's Order Paper, which is about as good as last week's menu?
Mr. Peart: I hope that the Services Committee can have a look at this problem. I have called a special meeting.
Mr. Booth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on these benches want an opportunity in the Chamber to debate the views put to them by the trade union lobby of the House yesterday afternoon? Will he provide time on an early occasion to debate the urgent need for the Government to dissociate themselves entirely from American military activities in Vietnam?
Mr. Peart: I gave a reply earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) on this issue of a major debate. Let me look at this.
Mr. Bryan: Could the Leader of the House arrange for the debate on radio to be a general debate on broadcasting so that the serious effects of the increased levy on I.T.V. could also be discussed?
Mr. Peart: The debate on broadcasting is the responsibility of the hon. Member who was successful in gaining first place in the Ballot for his Motion. I gather that the title is, "Broadcasting the Proceedings of the House of Commons".
Mr. Bryan: Are we to have a debate on broadcasting generally?
Mr. Peart: I shall consider whether we can have such a debate.
Mr. McNamara: Concerning Monday's business after ten o'clock and Wednesday's business, am I right in assuming that we shall have only Second Readings and no further stages? On Monday's business, which has reference to legislation in Stormont, will my right hon. Friend arrange for copies of that legislation to be available in the Vote Office?
Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir, there will be Second Readings and no other stages. I shall look at the other matter.
Mr. Amery: Does not the Leader of the House recognise that our deprivation of parliamentary papers amounts to a contempt of Parliament? If he thinks that the feelings of the chapel concerned are too delicate to be trampled on, can he not have the photostat copies of papers multiplied and distributed by post or in some other way?
Mr. Peart: I have information given to me that the strike is over. I do not want to say something here—and I hope that no hon. Member will do so—which would spoil the situation. I shall certainly look at the question of emergency publication and whether this could be stepped up in certain circumstances.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: May I support the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) for an urgent debate on Vietnam and also take the opportunity of supporting the proposal for a debate on broadcasting?
Mr. Speaker: On business questions, there must be one business request at a time.
Mr. Peart: I have given my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone. I cannot go beyond that.
Mr. Wiggin: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that his answers to Questions yesterday on the report of the Services Committee will cause a great deal of disturbance to many hon. Members on both sides of the House? Will he say whether the statement on secret
620
arial services and increased travel allowances will be made next week?
Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that what I said was disturbing to hon. Members. I have acted very quickly, considering the time-table. A statement will be made as soon as possible.
Mr. Russell Kerr: In view of the widespread concern on this side of the House about several proposals in the White Paper on civil aviation, will my right hon. Friend promise a debate on this matter at least this side of Christmas if he cannot find time next week?
Mr. Peart: Let us wait and see when legislation comes. I will consider whether there should be a debate on the White Paper.
Sir G. Nabarro rose—
Sir A. V. Harvey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Sir Arthur Harvey.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The Leader of the House has not been very explicit—
Sir G. Nabarro rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) must take his turn.
Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You did not give me a chance to stand up, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: Sir Arthur Harvey.
Sir A. V. Harvey: The Leader of the House has not been very explicit about the supply of parliamentary papers. Will he try to tell the House accurately this afternoon what the present position is, so that we may know? He seemed to hedge and to be rather cagey about it.
Mr. Peart: I am not being cagey. I am anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Members.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise your difficulties, because you do not know what a question is to be before it is uttered. Nevertheless, is it not a waste of time of the House and of hon. Members who wish to ask business questions on individual topics if some questions are repeated over and over again by hon. Members opposite?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has been long enough in Parliament to know what he has noticed today is not a novelty about questions. Indeed, it is a way in which one side or the other or one group or the other calls attention to what it thinks are grave matters—and this is a grave matter.
Mr. Maclennan: In view of the report by "Justice" on the setting up of an Ombudsman and the Government's commitment to do this and the absence of any reference to it in the Gracious Speech, can my right hon. Friend make a statement next week on the progress of consultation with local authorities on this problem?
Mr. Peart: I will consider whether a statement can be made, but I am not aware that there is a general demand for it.
Sir G. Nabarro: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he recognises that seven times in this Chamber he has claimed to have acted quickly in the matter of hon. Members' allowances for travel and secretarial aids, but the fact is that he has now occupied four months since 24th July last on this matter? Does he need four years to deal with it? Will he not undertake to make a statement positively before next Thursday to avoid further wastage of our time?
Mr. Peart: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who has been here for a long time, that many of the things already introduced were not done in previous years. When the Services Committee discussed this matter and produced a report I made an announcement just before the Recess and I accepted the report in principle. Inevitably, there must be discussions with Government Departments which are involved. I have acted quickly and I am rather surprised that the hon. Member should be so churlish.
Mr. Dickens: While fully recognising the improvements brought about recently in services to Members, will my right hon. Friend take note of the concern felt by many of us about the continuing delay in resolving this problem and our hope that he will be able to make a statement on the matter next week?
Mr. Peart: Yes, Sir, I am aware of its importance. I am anxious to make a statement as soon as possible.
Sir T. Beamish: If the strike is not settled and the provision of parliamentary papers on time is not assured by tomorrow morning, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement at 11 o'clock tomorrow?
Mr. Peart: I have always said to hon. Members that, if necessary, my right hon. Friend as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is responsible for this matter, will make a statement. If necessary, I shall ask him to do so tomorrow.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: May I press my right hon. Friend, for the second time this afternoon, for a debate on the new White Paper on civil air transport in this country? May I draw his attention to a Motion on the Order Paper in my name, when it finally appears, which has 40 signatures attached? May I press for an urgent debate on this very important subject?
Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion, but I cannot go beyond what I said earlier.
Mr. Marten: The right hon. Gentleman said that we could have a debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, but what we want is a debate on the White Paper before the Bill.
Mr. Peart: I said that I will look into it.
Mr. John Page: If the Leader of the House finds it necessary to ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement tomorrow about parliamentary papers, will he put to him the rather naive suggestion that he might tell the House what the dispute is about?
Mr. Pearl: I am anxious to see that the dispute is ended satisfactorily.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order. In raising this point of order, Mr. Speaker, I must, first, apologise to you and, through you, to the House for what may appear to be a somewhat tedious and lengthly preamble.

623
It will be within the recollection of the House that quite recently the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) published the minutes of its meeting on 8th July and days following. In that document there ocur the following words:
"A letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mr. Speaker concerning relations between the House of Commons, the Treasury, and the Civil Service Departments considered.
Resolved,
That the Chancellor's proposals should be adopted."
Following that, I put a Question, with your consent and knowledge, to the Leader of the House, asking him whether he would seek the agreement of Mr. Speaker to placing in the Library a copy of the letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Mr. Speaker concerning relations between the House, the Treasury and the Civil Service as referred to on page 3 of the Report that I have mentioned.
To this, the Lord President of the Council replied that it would not be appropriate to do so because these papers were Select Committee documents which had not been reported to the House. It would be right to inform the House what Erskine May says on one aspect of this subject, namely,
" A select committee … possesses no authority except that which it derives by delegation from the House by which it is appointed … the scope of its deliberations or inquiries is defined by the order by which the committee is appointed."
The Order appointing this Committee is contained in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 14th November, 1967, when a Motion was moved by the then Lord President of the Council, now the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Crossman),
" to advise Mr. Speaker on the control of the accommodation and services in that part of the Palace of Westminster and its precincts, occupied by or on behalf of the House of Commons, and to report thereon to this House."
There is nothing in the Order which states or implies that the Committee is empowered to consider relationships between the House, the Treasury and the Civil Service Department.
My point of order is, first, that since it is beyond the scope of the Committee to consider relationships between the
624
House, the Treasury and the Civil Service these can be raised only if the subjects which it is considering themselves raise this question of considerable importance. If so, since it is a matter which is fundamental and sensitive to the House—and I think that in the opinion of many hon. Members it is increasingly fundamental and sensitive—surely the House as a whole would not only wish to discuss it but would have a right to do so.
Secondly, there seems to be a growing and undesirable practice for Committees of this kind to suppress documents by pleading privilege. Surely no Committee of the House should arrogate to itself the exclusive right to discuss matters of such importance unless—and I emphasise this —specifically requested and empowered by the House to do so.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what steps the House may take as a whole to protect its legitimate interests in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) for letting me know that he intended to raise this issue on a point of order arising out of the reply to one of his Questions—although he will remember that when he submitted it to me he submitted the wrong Question and Answers and I had to find them during the interval between his submission and just now.
I must point out, however, that this is not the proper occasion on which to discuss the functions or powers of the Services Committee. As those powers were exercised in the last Session of Parliament, the Services Committee for the current Session, which has not yet met, has no control over documents which have not been reported to the House.
But there is a procedure by which such documents can be made available—the hon. Member asked me for guidance —namely, by putting down a Motion that they be laid upon the Table. If agreed to, the Motion would secure their production from the Committee archives.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: On a point of order. I beg to move, That copies of this document be laid upon the Table.
Mr.Speaker:Order.The hon.Member has been in Parliament long enough to know that he must put a Motion on the Order Paper.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION FOR MONDAY,1st DECEMBER,1969
The following Members were successful in the Ballot:
Mr.David Watkins.
Mr.Anthony Berry.
Mr.James Dance.

DEFENCE
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first Motion to be moved, I should point out that we have made a practice for several years of taking the first two Motions— on the Army and the Royal Air Force — formally. Then we proceed to the Adjournment and,on the Adjournment,if it is the general wish of the House,we discuss defence, which includes the Army,the Air Force and the Navy.
Resolved,
That the Army Act 1955 (continuation)Order 1969,a draft of which was laid before this house on 28th October, be approved.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
Resolved,
That the Air Force Act 1955 (Continuation) Order 1969,a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th October,be approved.—[Mr.Hattersley.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Harper.]
3.56 p.m.
The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley): Traditionally, this debate, following as it does the Army and the Air Force Acts, offers the Government an opportunity to report to the House on the current recruiting position. The House will be aware that during the life of this Government this will be the first of these occasions on which the Secretary of State for Defence has either not spoken in the debate or been heard know that he is at this time in America and that he is at this time in America and that he has asked me to convey to the House his apologies for not being here today.
I Now come to the traditional task of dealing—I think at some length—with the current recruiting situation. In the financial year 1968–69,about 29,000 menjoined the forces—a figure appreciably below our target. It is possible to suggest a variety of reasons for that short fall,and amongst the most convincing are a number of demographic and sociological factors which are certainly working against us.
The forces have always drawn a preponderance of their recruits from young men between the ages of 15 and 20. Now the actual number of Young men of this

627
age is declining and will continue to do so until 1975. In 1963, there were 1,469,000; now there are 1,168,000; and in 1974 there will be only 997,000. We have in consequence, if we are to meet our recruiting target, to attract into the Services an increasing proportion of young men within that age group.
Yet there are other factors which work as disincentives as never before. Young men in this age group are more likely to continue in full-time education than has ever previously been the case. They are now offered, in private industry, training opportunities which were once available to them only in the Armed Forces. The national tendency to marry younger is a strong disincentive to joining the forces; so, I fear, are the occasional doubts in the minds of potential recruits as to the importance of the job that the Services do. These doubts have been encouraged by the arguments which have surrounded recent Defence Reviews. I emphasise that they have been encouraged by the arguments rather than the decisions.
As a result of those reviews we have Armed Forces whose tasks are real rather than imaginary, whose role is primarily related to the defence of Western Europe, and, within Europe, Great Britain. They are better-trained and better-equipped than they have ever been in peacetime. Any objective judgment of the tasks which the Services now perform must convince the young man who contemplates a Service career that life in the forces offers him two things; first, opportunities rarely available in other professions; second, a crucial part, a visible, tangible and, I believe, publicly accepted part, in the creation of a secure and stable Britain.
Fortunately, I believe that the role of the modern Armed Forces and their central importance to the nation is increasingly accepted. Recruiting figures during this calendar year as a whole show an encouraging increase. At the end of January, we could claim only that, during the previous year, we had recruited a little over 28,000 Service men. During the 12 months that ended on 30th September, the annual figure had risen to 32,000—a year which began badly ended well. Indeed, if the monthly recruiting
628
figures which we achieved in the spring and summer can be maintained, we shall meet our annual targets.
I suppose that anyone who has read today's newspaper accounts of summer recruiting, as I see the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) has, must wonder how this can be possible. The simple answer is that disappointing August figures were followed by figures in September which showed a spectacular success. In August, we recruited 3,083 men into the three Services—200 fewer than in August last year. In September, we recruited more than twice that number, 6,385–1,500 more than in the same month last year. The Navy recruited three times as many men in September as in August. The Army recruited 1,200 more men in September, 1969, than in September 1968.
Of course, between those two dates, a number of things have happened. The Army has played a spectacularly successful part in preserving peace and stability in Northern Ireland. Arguments about the Defence Review have subsided and the Army has introduced an extension of its three-year engagement. A radical alteration in Service pay was announced which I believe will encourage men on such short-term engagements to renew their service, so that the figures for renewal of service are remarkably encouraging. What is known as the prolongation rate and in the Army is calculated as the number of men on six-year engagements who sign on for a second term increased from 36 per cent. in 1966 to 50 per cent. this year.
I said that one of the factors which I believe has played a part in renewed recruiting was the announcement of a new pay deal, but I have never believed, and do not believe now, that the level of recruitment to the forces is or could be fundamentally changed by the pay that the forces receive. But pay levels do have two important relationships with the recruiting picture. In the first place, there are men who are attracted to Service life because of its nature, because of its quality, because of the opportunity it provides, but are discouraged from joining because of the pay levels. Second, a crucial element, in my view, in recruiting, is the potential Service man's judgment of the status of the forces in the public

629
mind and their importance in national life. The willingness of the community to pay the Service man a decent wage is, therefore, bound to influence his decision.
The military salary, I believe, meets these recruiting needs, as well as offering the Services prospects of levels of pay which equity and justice demand—
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing(Hendon, North): Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the figures, we should be grateful to know how it is that the August figures were given to the Press and to the House only yesterday, yet the September figures have come forward today for the first time in the hon. Gentleman's speech. Why was there so much bunching? Why did we not get the August figures sooner than two months later?
Mr. Hattersley: I concede at once that it is unfortunate that the August figures were delayed, but this was for reasons which are in no way sinister—reasons concerning the work load in the Department. I offer the hon. Gentleman my apologies for that situation right away and I hope that he will accept that there is no other interpretation to be put on that than the one that I have just given him.
I was going on to say that it would be wrong to suggest that, with the introduction of the new pay scheme which I mentioned, recruiting problems would be over. They may be reduced, but many other disincentives to recruitment will remain, although we will continue to attempt to meet them by our continued substantial recruiting effort, which not only demonstrates the advantages of Service life but also shows the importance of the work which the Services do.
We shall continue to examine terms of service for which potential recruits may be engaged. Already, the Navy has introduced a new engagement structure in the seamens' and electrical mechanics' branches. A nine-year engagement can have a four-year break, although the man who opts for the shorter liability naturally receives a lower level of pay. The response to such schemes will determine future policies in all three Services, but we are well aware that such schemes place on us a special duty to ensure that the man who joins the Service stays in it for longer than his initial engagement.
630
Hon. Members who have visited the Services since the National Board for Prices and Incomes reported will, I am sure, have shared my experience of the forces' attitude towards that report. Their attitude is, frankly, sceptical. Their inclination is to wait and see. Of necessity, they were told the general outline of the new pay scheme without being given precise figures of the pay which individual Service men would receive. In consequence, they have a cautious response, one which I understand and which, as a Yorkshireman, I approve of, but we also made other promises when we announced the acceptance of the report.
We told the Services that the new scales would be in operation from 1st April, 1970. I am now happy to report to the House that the complex work of job evaluation is going ahead on time and there is no reason why that April deadline should not be met. I still do not know and cannot say what rates of pay will be introduced next April. We shall not know the details of that until the N.B.P.I. produces a further report next February. I can, however, I believe, demonstrate that the Services will be doing much better as a whole than would have been the case had we not abandoned the Grigg formula, the method by which their pay has been calculated for the last nine years.
I admit at once that the comparison which I am about to make is something of a simplification. For one thing, the Grigg formula, dependent as it was Jn comparisons with earnings outside the Service, would have produced increases in 1970 which I can only predict. For another, Governments in the past—my Government in 1968 and that of right hon. Gentlemen opposite in 1962—have staggered the Grigg increases. But putting the possibility of staging aside, it is reasonable to estimate that the increase which Grigg would have produced since 1966 is between £75 million and £80 million. That calculation is based broadly on the assumption that the index of average industrial earnings would change between July, 1965, and July, 1969, at the rate of about 25 per cent. That assumption, 1 repeat, would produce a Grigg increase of between £75 million and £80 million.
In 1968, under the new formula, the total wage bill of the Armed Forces was increased by £27 million. In 1969, it

631
was increased by a further £20½ million, the cost of the interim recommendations of the N.B.P.I. in its last Report. It has been estimated that an additional £52½ million will meet the cost of implementing the military salary concept, which is the system under which single and married men are paid the same rate for doing the same job. This is £100 million—
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins(Derbyshire, South-West) rose—
Mr. Hattersley: Of course, if we give single men the emoluments of married men—I expect that this is the point which the hon. Member is about to make—they will pay more tax, but increases under Grigg were also taxed and so the comparison is entirely fair.
The House will recall that the Prices and Incomes Board recommended, and the Government accepted, that new rates of pay for the forces should be determined by methods of job evaluation and that these new rates should be further enhanced by what the board calls the X factor, a factor designed to compensate men for the special difficulties of Service life. Whatever increases emerge from job evaluation and the board's assessment of the X factor, they will have to be added to the wage bill.
The Government have made provision for 1970–71 of an extra £30 million above and beyond the cost of the military salary for the purpose of improved Service pay according to those two elements. As a result, between 1966 and 1970, because of the new formula, the Services' wage bill will have been increased by £130 million as opposed to, at best, the £80 million which would have flowed from the simple application of the Grigg formula.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For the sake of clarity, will the hon. Gentleman repeat exactly what, in his and his Department's estimation, will be the increase flowing in the coming year from the new job evaluation and the N.B.P.I. report with the new rates following the introduction of new scales of military salary?
At the same time, can the hon. Gentleman explain that it is his Department which is doing the job evaluation and the N.B.P.I. which will make the recommendations? Presumably, the marry-up
632
will not take place until later in the year, leaving only a very short time before the introduction of the improvements for the Armed Forces to assess what is happening.
Mr. Hattersley: Cross-examination on the work of the National Board for Prices and Incomes raises awful memories for me, but I will do my best to answer the hon. Member's question as calmly as I can.
Two elements are involved. The first is £52 million for the military salary concept. The second is £30 million for the X factor and the job evaluation. The latter is being done in my Department in co-operation with the N.B.P.I., with whom, I assure the House we are working in the closest co-operation because, like the hon. Member, we understand the difficulties that will arise if these two operations get out of phase. Only by this close co-operation can we meet the April deadline, which we certainly intend to do.
I turn to another aspect of recruitment. As the House is well aware, a large proportion of all Service men join the forces before the age of 18. Seventy per cent. of the total intake into the Royal Navy is by boy entrants; 30 per cent. of the intake of the other two Services is made up in the same way. Their importance to the Services is even greater than these simple figures suggest, because it is to these young men that the Services look for a large proportion of their senior non-commissioned officers.
The terms under which these boys are engaged continue to cause great concern. Before I discuss, however, what some hon. Members believe to be an issue of fundamental liberty, let me try to put the picture in perspective. We recruit 12,000 young Service men every year. Most of them live happy and successful lives. A few regret bitterly their decision to join. They feel themselves totally unsuited to Service life. Most of this group discover their unsuitability within a few weeks of joining, and leave. Others are discharged as unsuitable later in their Service life.
I repeat that the group whose attitude is characterised by bitter regret is small—perhaps, statistically within the total force, a tiny group. There is, however, a larger group who feel a temporary

633
or, perhaps, recurring dissatisfaction with their job and want to change. The feeling of wanting to change jobs between the ages of 15 and 18 is one which is not unknown in civilian life, but the difference is that in civilian life people are allowed to make the change. In the Services they cannot do so because the Ministry of Defence must regard the maintenance of force levels of a size sufficient to meet our defence commitments as its overriding obligation. Under that paramount obligation, however, we are, naturally, eager to reconcile the needs of the Services with the legitimate wishes of these young men.
Mr. Eric Lubbock(Orpington): The hon. Gentleman has just said something rather important which I wish to under- line: that it is not uncommon for young men in civilian life to want to change jobs between the ages of 15 and 18. Will he confirm that we have never demanded that they should have this right in the forces, but only that when they reach the age of 18, the age of majority laid down by the Latey Committee and accepted by the House, should they have the option of making a decision, and not before then?
Mr. Hattersley: I understand very well that that is the hon. Member's view, but I was not addressing my point specifically to him. I was talking in general about the position of boys in the Services. I want to address a point specifically to the hon. Member presently, because I under- stand his proper and continuing concern in this matter and I am more than anxious to meet the views which, I believe, he properly holds.
Boys in the forces cannot change their jobs in the same way as is possible in civilian life because the primary obligation of the Ministry of Defence is to make sure that manning levels are adequate to meet our needs. It is, how- ever, our continuing enthusiasm to reconcile the demands of civil liberties with the need to maintain forces at an adequate level. It was in an attempt to reconcile those conflicting objectives that, two years ago, my predecessor announced in response to the recommendations of the Latey Committee that young men entering the Services would in future have six months instead of three months in which they might freely change their minds.
634
My predecessor also announced that when the age of majority was reduced to 18, entry of young men below that age would always be dependent on their parents' consent. He expanded that statement when he later met the Parliamentary Group on Civil Liberties and said that he would examine other suggestions as to how the engagement structure might be changed.
I have to tell the House that all the evidence at my disposal as a result of that examination in no way justifies a fundamental change in the obligation that young Service men must accept, although, I am glad to be able to report, we have been able to reinterpret the earlier relaxations in a slightly wider form. There are, of course, those who urge a leap in the dark, who ask me to agree to a relaxation in the hope that the levels of our forces will remain unaffected. That is not the sort of risk which any responsible Minister of Defence could take.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson(The High Peak): Am I right in interpreting my hon. Friend's statement as a blanket rejection of the Latey proposals? We know that he has accepted two, but there was a third, that within three months of a young man reaching the age of majority he would have the right of release. Do I take it that my hon. Friend is rejecting that third Latey proposal?
Mr. Hattersley: Not for the first time, I am suffering from the tendency to give way too often. I was going on to try to meet the point that my hon. Friend has raised, but let me put it to him as a direct answer to his question.
I am saying that the second Latey proposal—that young men should have the opportunity to leave the forces at or about their 18th birthday—is a risk which I do not feel it justifiable to take. I am going on to say, however, that there are other people who have urged, as well as a leap in the dark, a general relaxation and who claim that the general act of making engagement structures more flexible would in itself build into the system a compensation against future losses. They say that more flexible terms of engagement would encourage an increased number of boys to join the Service.
Some, of course, would drift off. I suspect that some would drift back, but

635
there would be a net loss. That is a net loss which, I suspect, my hon. Friend and, no doubt, others would argue would be more than compensated for by the increased numbers of young people who would join the forces when they knew that they would not be committing themselves irrevocably for a long period.
If we adopted that system, there would, of course, be a substantial wastage of trained personnel. The creation of a trained adult Service man would be a great deal more expensive than it is today. For my part, however, I would not allow that financial problem to prevent a movement in that direction, but I would need to be convinced that things would work out in the way that these predictions suggest. Indeed, in the case of recruitment of young men, I believe that a strong case can be made for a general examination of their terms of reference, their organisation and the obligations they undertake.
I am, therefore, setting up a committee, which will include civilian as well as Service personnel, to examine these entire questions. The exact terms of reference of the Committee have not yet been decided, but I can say that the committee will report to me and I shall report to the House. I warn the House now, however, that whenever the committee's report leaves a question in doubt I shall come down on the side of safety; whenever there are two interpretations as to the outcome of a likely change, I shall feel it my duty to choose the alternative which ensures that the forces remain as large and as competent as we need them to be.
Mr. Tom Driberg(Barking): I welcome my hon. Friend's announcement of the committee, but how does he reconcile what he has been saying in the last few minutes with what he said just before, that only a very few of these entrants regret entering the Services? Why is there any risk of a mass exodus?
Mr. Hattersley: Apparently, I have not made my point sufficiently clear my hon. Friend.
Mr. Driberg: No.
Mr. Hattersley: I shall try to do better.
There is a tiny proportion who bitterly regret it, in the most extreme form. They
636
are either discharged as unsuitable or they leave during the early months of their service. The problem is not a problem of bitter regret. It is a problem of occasional dissatisfaction. It is the loss of the boys who become dissatisfied—as they might become dissatisfied with industrial apprenticeship and shove off as a result—which is the real problem about which I seek to know more.
We are certain to hear in the debate of the review of reserve forces which fundamentally altered the shape of the Territorial Army. Those changes have been consolidated over the past year. I can report to the House that recruiting for these forces has been more than satisfactory. Strengths—disregarding the old Territorials, the TAVR III, who have been disbanded—have increased from about 40,500 at the end of last year to about 47,000 at the end of September. Half of these additional recruits transferred from the TAVR III during the period of its disbandment. But I do not believe that that transfer simply represents a movement from one Territorial force to another of equal value.
Our analysis of reserve force policy must be made according to the same rigid criteria of realism and practicability which we use to judge the sense and value of defence policy as a whole. The new Territorial organisation has produced volunteer regiments which are capable of fulfilling a rÔle to which the old Territorials could never even have aspired. They have been equipped, as promised in the 1965 White Paper, in such a way that they can carry out their tasks in support of the Regular Army. Their equipment is comparable in terms of vehicles, communications and weapons with that of the Army itself. They can, in an emergency, be slotted into our Regular defensive deployment. They are in a genuine sense a part of the Regular Army, and no one who has seen them could conceive that they could not, if circumstances demand, fight side by side with the Regular Army itself.
This summer, it was my privilege to join the Highland Volunteers at their summer camp. They already knew the role which they would perform in a N.A.T.O. emergency. They knew where they would be stationed. They knew the Regular forces with whom they would fight side by side. They have seen the

637
ground which it would be their task to defend, and they are supremely capable of carrying out that task.
I tell the House frankly—I think that it must be said—that this is a far cry from the larger but less well trained, less well equipped, and less well organised old Territorial Army. Its rÔle was either uncertain or known by the Government of the day to be a task which not only could they not perform, but one which they were not likely to be asked to perform. The vision of the recently mustered—
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon(Hexham): The hon. Gentleman says that it was a task which they would not be likely to be asked to perform. Is it not a task which they were, in fact, asked to perform in two world wars and which they performed very satisfactorily?
Mr. Hattersley: There was a task which they were asked to perform in two world wars, and I shall in a minute pay tribute to that task and what they did. But what we owe to them is to recognise that that task is no longer appropriate. I owe it to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, or his right hon. Friend, who was responsible for this force six years ago, to say that, by the way it was organised, by the support which was prepared for it, and by the role which it was prepared to perform, I cannot believe that he would have contemplated putting it into action in any practical sense, for that would have been a most irresponsible thing to do to a force which was not only badly trained but over-age and badly equipped.
Mr. James Ramsden(Harrogate): I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box speaking for his new Department, but he is venturing into deep and controversial waters. I say only that I do not in the least accept what he says, and I now let him get on with his speech.
Mr. Hattersley: Like all wise Ministers making their first speech in a new Department, I read the previous debates. When my predecessor made similar charges, but much more documented than I have had a chance to do, the right hon. Gentleman intervened to say that he did not accept a word of it, but he did not
638
develop that non-acceptance during his subsequent speech.
Mr. Ramsden: I went on to say that, if the Government spokesman repeated those assertions, I should exercise my right to send to the War Office and obtain the papers, which it would be great fun to do. It has not been said again, but I issue the same warning for the benefit of the present Minister.
Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman has that right, and many of us would like to see him exercise it. Perhaps, even without the benefit of the papers, he can tell us how many of the force which he claimed to be 115,000 strong he thought were sufficiently well trained, sufficiently well armed, and, for that matter, of an age group to make them fit to take part in the sort of undertaking which I have described as the role of the new volunteers.
I repeat that their role was uncertain or known to be one which they could not perform. The vision of a recently mustered and inadequately prepared militia defending the United Kingdom with traditional weapons against a conventional invasion is one which, I repeat with all sincerity, I regard as a heroic picture. I play my part in offering tribute to those men who were prepared to make such a contribution 30 or 60 years ago, but it would be ludicrous to pretend that there could be any real likelihood of such a force being called upon today to perform a similiar task.
To pretend that without that sort of reserve, ready to fight in the streets with conventional weapons against some sort of hypothetical invasion, this country would be defenceless is to deny all the premises on which the collective defence of Europe is based. It is to imply that the general Western strategy for the defence of this Continent is based on a series of misconceptions.
It is flattering to some groups to pretend that such a role is still possible, but the theory has one basic weakness, that it is not consistent with reality.
Mr. Rippon: Why do Her Majesty's Government alone among all the countries of Western Europe take that view? Do they say that the view which the Minister has now expressed is wholly acceptable to our N.A.T.O. allies?
Mr. Hattersley: The question is not whether other people regard what I have said as acceptable and logical, but whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman does.
Mr. Rippon: I do not.
Mr. Hattersley: Since he does not, perhaps he or one of his right hon. and hon. Friends would care to hypothesise the situation in which a force of the sort we have been discussing, the force which existed after 1964, could have played a cogent part in the defence of this country. I do not believe that such a hypothesis can be anything but wildly improbable. [An HON. MEMBER: "In Ulster."] Certainly not in Ulster.
I have already said—it is pertinent again to the point which I am now making—that I hope that young men contemplating a career in the Services feel confident that they are preparing to play a real rather than an imaginary military role, and I hope—I must put this to right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that not only will potential recruits look to the Services in these realistic terms but that they and their hon. Friends will begin to do so, too.
I suppose that, in the light of that reference to realism, we are bound to hear a great deal today about the concept of overstretch. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) has been courteous enough to warn me and my hon. Friend, who hopes to catch the eye of the Chair later, that he intends to deal with exactly that problem. If the term means anything, it means that too little is spread too thinly over too great an area. I hope that we shall hear no criticism of overstretch from right hon. and hon. Members who want to stretch our resources even further than they are spread today.
British defence policy is now concentrated on Europe. It is concentrated there not because that is a cheap or easy option, but because we make the realistic assumption that that is where our principal effort needs to be.
There is, perhaps, an understandable temptation to ask that our defences are organised, or at least seen to be organised, in such a way that we can meet, or at least claim to meet, any conceivable threat; but if we concentrate our efforts
640
on preparing for the unlikely, it is more than probable that we shall be less than competently prepared for what is our realistic task.
As a result of successive Defence Reviews and the concentration of our forces in Europe, we now have 30 battalions in the United Kingdom. In June, 1964, we had 19. As a result of this concentration, the manning position in B.A.O.R. has improved to the extent of 3,500 men. We are, in short, more able to fulfil our N.A.T.O. commitment, more able to respond to the unforeseen emergency in Europe should that occur.
Today, we have 10 battalions in Northern Ireland, and we have not yet had to call on our forces in Germany. In 1958, the Cyprus emergency required the withdrawal of two battalions from B.A.O.R. In 1964, during the South Arabian conflict and confrontation in Asia, a battalion had to be withdrawn from Germany. Had we faced the Ireland emergency when we also retained these overseas commitments, we would have been left with no other option but to withdraw from their N.A.T.O. role forces far larger than the continued security of Western Europe would warrant.
We have already made clear that one battalion is likely to be needed from B.A.O.R. during the early part of next year to relieve a battalion now serving in Northern Ireland, but I emphasise that their task will be relief rather than reinforcement. It is also possible that additional relief battalions will prove necessary if the emergency continues to require. troop levels in Northern Ireland at about their present size, but this is a function of the very special, indeed, perhaps unique, nature of the Northern Ireland operation. Units in Northern Ireland are on short unaccompanied tours limited to four or five months' duration. Under the conditions in which they live, and because of the special situations in which they operate, it is essential that they should be rotated quickly.
The possibility of major units leaving B.A.O.R. for service in Northern Ireland is much more a problem of rotation than of net shortage. It certainly highlights the particular conditions under which our troops operate in Northern Ireland, but does not indicate, as some hon. Gentlemen have suggested, basic weaknesses of our defence policy.

641
I have said that the operation which is now being carried out by British forces in Northern Ireland is unique in a number of ways. There is one way in which I am sure the whole House will agree that that operation is typical. British Service men have conducted themselves in a fashion which is a credit to the Armed Forces in particular and to Great Britain in general. All of us must have regretted during the summer that some foreign newspapers carried pictures of rioting in United Kingdom cities, but all of us must have been proud to know that many of the stories accompanying those pictures told of British soldiers accepted by both sides in the riots as impartial friends.
Most of the troops now stationed there arrived in Northern Ireland during a period of extreme tension. They were assigned to a task which none of them would have chosen. Despite great provocation and some danger, they have been a major force in our attempts to establish peace and security in Northern Ireland. In general, they are accepted by the Northern Ireland population as their Army, working on their behalf. The troops are known to be working in the best interests of the Province, and to be doing it under the most difficult conditions.
There are two major difficulties. The first is the psychological tension that soldiers must undergo in the peculiar circumstances of guarding bridges and key points, patrolling streets and living in "on-duty" conditions, and yet seeing all about them an apparently peaceful city not dissimilar from their home towns. There is a particular paradox from which no soldier can fail to suffer; to be living in conditions for himself of perpetual "alert", although he is surrounded by sights and sounds and people who seem to him to be very typical in many ways of the peaceful United Kingdom in which he was brought up.
The second particular problem which soldiers find concerns the areas in which the troops are working. Company bases, by their nature, have to be in areas of potential tension, and the areas of potential tension are singularly short of decent property. Indeed, there are those who would argue that this shortage of decent property is one of the factors that
642
have made them areas of tension. Be that as it may, the certain outcome of this situation is that we have found it virtually impossible to find sufficient good quality property in the areas where we need to set up our tactical bases. Some are better than others. Some are certainly not good enough for long-term occupation. It is my hope that those troops who are using particularly decrepit property for their company bases will be found alternatives before the winter sets in.
It may be that, as the situation stabilises, we can simply abandon use of some of the worst emergency accommodation. It may be that, as the situation changes, Twynham huts can be erected on open ground which is not at the moment ideally suitable to the operation. But the process of improvement which we have already made to all accommodation since our troops arrived in August must continue.
The problem of battalion camps is not so difficult. It is, however, vitally important, for a soldier who returns to his base camp after eight days at a tactical post, eight days in which he has done literally nothing but eat, sleep and patrol, needs the best rest conditions that we can provide.
At battalion level, the extra garrison has in part been accommodated by doubling up in barracks. We have also expanded into hutted camps and barracks which had been previously abandoned. There has also been some additional requisitioning of properties. We have also erected 37 Twynham huts. As there was no necessity to requisition battalion camps in the heart of troubled areas, we have been more selective about the property used for this purpose.
The House knows that H.M.S. "Maidstone" is now in position in Belfast Harbour. She will provide battalion accommodation at a higher level than is at present available at all base camps. But H.M.S. "Maidstone" is only one way in which we have tried to improve conditions.
The Ministry of Public Building and Works has undertaken an immense programme to build cookhouses, lavatories and washing facilities on to, near to and within requisitioned property. I give

643
only three brief examples. Within the St. Lucia Barracks, in Armagh, there has been a complete overhaul; there are new cooking facilities, new lavatories, new washrooms and a completely new heating system. In the Newpark factory in Antrim, cooking facilities to meet the needs of 500 troops have been installed and an armoury and ration store have been built. In dozens of private properties both in Belfast and Londonderry where troops are stationed in company bases there has been a programme of improvement and adaptation. Water, heating and lighting have been provided, doors have been hung and windows replaced.
No one can be satisfied with all the conditions under which the troops in Northern Ireland are living, but enormous improvements have been brought about. I know that on both sides of the House there is unqualified admiration for the way in which General Freeland has commanded the British troops in Northern Ireland. I am sure that we should also express equally our thanks for what he has done during the last three months, with the help and the willing cooperation of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the civil authorities in Northern Ireland, to improve their physical conditions. I hope, as my final word, that the House will accept my assurance that we intend that progress should continue.
4.38 p.m.
Mr. James Ramsden(Harrogate): I agree with the Minister's first words, namely, that it is useful—and this has become increasingly apparent—to have a rather more general debate on the Adjournment on these Orders, rather than to confine ourselves to the somewhat narrow range of matters which arises directly upon them. The hon. Gentleman took full advantage of the latitude which was allowed him and ranged very widely, and not a little provocatively, over the whole gamut. That was brave of him and perhaps speaks well of the interest and animation which he will bring in the future to Service debates.
I shall later have some criticism of him to make, but in view of the comparatively recent advent of the hon. Gentleman and of the Under-Secretary to the Front Bench, they may perhaps be excepted from any culpability that I shall
644
assign, except in so far as they are members of a Government who, as I shall seek to show later, have failed lamentably in their organisation of our defence policy.
I welcomed, as I am sure did the House, the details which the Minister was able to give about recruiting. We would all endorse what he had to say about the worthwhileness of a Service career to any young man who finds himself attracted to it. We were glad to hear about the promising September figures. But we must bear in mind—and I shall return to this matter later in my speech —that this is the first sign, though a welcome one, of an upturn after a quite long period of extremely disappointing and damaging results.
The House also welcomed the Minister's assurance that the pay increases would be implemented in April. But there would have been a great deal of alarm and despondency if he had told the House that they would not be implemented in April. The view of the Opposition is that if these increases had been phased in earlier the bad recruiting over the last 18 months or so might to a large extent been mitigated.
The House will also welcome the announcement of a committee to examine the problems of boys' service and well shall look forward to hearing greater detail perhaps when the Under-Secretary winds up.
I shall not today, since I do not want to take too long, debate with the Minister the Territorial Army. I am glad that recruiting has improved, but would remind the Government that although they may have 47,000 or so now as against 45,000 last time they made an announcement, if my memory serves me correctly they need very nearly 60,000 to man the order of battle. They would be wise not to plume themselves too much about the Territorial Army until they have the men they require. The fact is that under the present organisation of our reserves they cannot put the Rhine Army in the field without a fully manned and complemented order of battle in T.A.V.R. This must be remembered.
Like the Ministers opposite, I recently had the privilege of visiting Northern Ireland and of seeing something of our troops there. I want to say how the situation strikes me in connection with the

645
argument which has developed in the last few years about the general direction of the Government's defence policy.
The picture is nothing but good as regards the troops and the conduct of the operation. The situation is improving and is encouraging. But as for the impression left with anybody who has followed the defence debates of the last few years of the cumulative effect of the development of Government defence policy, the picture is very different. I personally find grave cause for concern in what I saw, as I will amplify a little later.
In the context of the argument about defence, the present emergency in Northern Ireland is of very great interest. It amounts to a test case since it is the first emergency that has arisen on any scale during the tenure of office of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was an emergency which arose unexpectedly and was largely unforeseen.
We have consistently argued that the Government have made too little provision for the unforeseen in their plans for and the disposition of our forces. It is also interesting since it is an emergency which has made heavy demands on the infantry. We have argued—and I have argued in particular with a certain amount of experience of difficult conditions—that the Government have been in danger of cutting too deeply, and they may cut deeper still, into our stock of infantry battalions.
I agree with the Minister that the conditions in which the troops are living are greatly improving of late weeks, but they are still no picnic. There has been a lot of self-help and improvisation in improving tactical living quarters and making the posts which the men must occupy on sentry more comfortable, especially in bad weather. The Ministry of Public Building and Works, with its contracting operations, has achieved a good deal.
The hours of duty are less long than originally, but even so they are long and arduous enough. Morale is very good, as one would expect, and as one nearly always finds when one has the privilege of visiting what are the finest regular troops anywhere in the world. I have no doubt that it contributed to good morale when the troops sensed the support given
646
to them from this House, and by public opinion in general, and by the Press when, regrettably, and under extreme provocation, they were forced to open fire some weeks ago. They sensed that public opinion realised the distasteful duty laid upon them and sympathised with them in the discharge of their duty.
I repeat that morale is excellent. The new accommodation in H.M.S. "Maidstone" to which the Minister referred will further improve matters. Although there is much to be done—and I hope that the Under-Secretary, in his reply, will say something about the possibilities of improving the state of accompaniment, perhaps by the provision of additional married quarters—I found the picture on the whole reassuring, as I am sure the House will be glad to hear.
I would make particular reference to the lengthy passage in the Minister's speech about pay. It is right that the House should spend a little time considering the special "Northern Ireland" allowance, or hardship allowance as I think it is called. It was initially welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition because we on this side of the House were glad to hear that something was being done to improve service pay. But the principle behind the increase deserves examination.
So far as I know, it is without precedent to make an allowance for service in any specific theatre. I seem to remember Lord Thorneycroft, when he was Secretary of State, regretfully having to refuse to make a special allowance to troops in Cyprus. Once set, it appears to be a difficult precedent to follow in future with any degree of fairness. There were a few raised eyebrows at the idea of a special payment for what, after all, is in the normal run of a soldier's duty, even though carried out in a difficult theatre and in difficult conditions.
Perhaps what went wrong was its presentation. It was presented to the House by the Secretary of State largely as a hardship allowance to make up for difficult conditions of service and duty. But they do not only occur in Northern Ireland. I think that the real justification was that those serving in Northern Ireland on unaccompanied tours do not get the separation allowance that they would if they were serving in other

647
theatres, since Northern Ireland is treated as a home station. There was an argument on those grounds. I am not sure that it was necessarily a conclusive one, and a precedent has been set which may be awkward in the future.
It may be argued that all this will be swallowed up in the new military salary and will be taken into account when the X factor comes into operation. That may be so, but this will raise its problems, too. On the experience in Northern Ireland, it does not look as if it will be easy to evaluate the X factor throughout a given theatre of operations. In Northern Ireland, the hardship allowance does not go only to those who are on duty in the streets. It goes to everyone in the theatre, including Royal Air Force and naval personnel who would be there, anyway, in the normal course of their duties.
I think that the Ministry of Defence has got itself into rather deep water over this, and we hope to hear more about it from the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the extra hardship allowance has not yet been received by a single Service man in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ramsden: I did not know that. Perhaps the Minister can confirm or deny it. There is no doubt that they are to get it from 1st August.
The first unit which I was able to visit in Northern Ireland was a composite one. The 1st Battalion the Royal Green Jackets had just handed over to a composite force consisting of a combination of the Royal Air Force Regiment and a battery of the Light Regiment of Royal Artillery which, I understand, normally is part of the United Kingdom Mobile Reserve. That means that the roles previously being discharged by three infantry rifle companies are now being discharged respectively by a battery of light gunners and two squadrons of 33 Wing, Royal Air Force Regiment, all under the command of the Wing Commander, Royal Air Force.
I am sure that they will do the job well. The fact remains, however, that the primary role of the R.A.F. Regiment
648
is airfield defence. There is no doubt that an infantry battalion would have been preferred in such a role if one had been available.
We have argued that the Secretary of State was bound to find himself short of infantry if he persisted in his policy of cuts, and we have been told fairly contemptuously often enough that what we on this side have been recommending is the retention of a large number of infantry battalions for which there could be no conceivable future role. In the context of an emergency such as this, it seems relevant to our argument to find the infantry role having to be discharged by a composite force made up mainly of other arms.
The passage in the hon. Gentleman's speech about the additional availability of 30 as against 19 battalions in this country now would have sounded rather better if more of those battalions were available for service where they are needed at present. In the normal course of deployment and reliefs, I understand that this composite force would have gone into Belfast on to the peace line. Instead, the 1st Battalion Royal Green Jackets was redeployed there. They had only just arrived in their tactical location and were setting about their duties with their customary efficiency. I was extremely grateful to them for putting up with the inconvenience of a visitor at such short notice.
I do not want to give strengths of battalions. I do not think that it is fair to do so. When I was on the benches opposite, and right hon. and hon. Members opposite were in opposition, they used to scold us for sending under-strength battalions overseas. They used to allege strengths, hoping that the Government would correct them by bringing out the real strengths. Governments cannot and should not try to do that, so I shall not do it. But the Secretary of State told us the other day that it takes a platoon of 25 men to man an infantry post satisfactorily.
That implies a need for three rifle sections of about eight men each. The House should know that the platoon strengths of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Green Jackets in Northern Ireland are not big enough to make possible this satisfactory level of manning. They have less

649
than eight men per section. They will manage, of course, because they are experienced and efficient soldiers. They were not complaining, but the fact is that manning at this level imposes extra and unnecessary strain.
It is one of the consequences of a prolonged period of bad recruiting such as we have had over the past 18 months, for which hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot escape their share of responsibility. 1 find it the more regrettable and surprising because my own experience in the days when the emphasis was on regimental recruiting was that the battalions of the Green Jacket Brigade were consistently at very high strength, usually over four companies. That is confirmed by the fact that, over the years, they have been consistently deployed in theatres where high-strength battalions were needed for active operations.
It appears that, of late, regimental effort in recruiting has been dismissed as rather an anachronism, and we are told that people joining up do not much mind where they go. It is a pity when regimental effort is belittled, and it may be that there is a lesson in the experience of how battalions like those of the Green Jackets have fared recently. If there is, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to heart.
The brigade in Belfast is 39 Brigade. It is part of the regular Northern Ireland garrison. But it has been extensively reinforced. It is a part of Strategic Command—that is to say, it is within 5 Division—but admittedly, it is part of the more static portion of the Command. It has been reinforced by five battalions from 3 Division, which is the United Kingdom Mobile Force. Subtracting from 3 Division the five battalions which have gone to Northern Ireland and taking off the one further battalion which I understand is assigned to the A.C.E. Mobile Force, one is left with a bare brigade for deployment on any other commitment which may fall to our Mobile Force. In addition, there are possibly two battalions of the Parachute Brigade, if there are two left, and possibly some gunners.
I will return to that point, but when one appreciates the inroads which have been made on our mobile capability in 3 Division by the situation in Northern Ireland, when one appreciates that we
650
still have numerous residual commitments in the world, and when one bears in mind the length of time that it looks as though our forces will have to remain in Northern Ireland, the strength of our additional commitment to N.A.T.O. about which the Secretary of State has said so much and the Government have plumed themselves so much begins to look very much less impressive than it did at one time. Additionally, we must bear in mind the serious inroads made on training when battalions which ought to be occupying themselves in preparation for a mobile role are redeployed on the kind of emergency which has cropped up in Ulster.
Since I have mentioned our commitment to N.A.T.O., perhaps I might add this. We are told by the Secretary of State, and we have been told again today, that in the event of further troops being required for Northern Ireland they would come from the British Army of the Rhine. Today, the Minister confirmed that some reliefs, not reinforcements, were definitely coming from the British Army of the Rhine. Incidentally, reinforcements are not required at the moment. I have no criticism of the force levels in Northern Ireland. They have enough there now.
I do not think that anybody on this side would have any complaint if and when troops do come from the Rhine Army to Northern Ireland. If they do not exist anyhewere else, they must come from there. But I draw the attention of the House to the political implications of this reliance on Germany for reinforcements. We were faced with the position that if we had wanted more reinforcements we would have had to go to Germany for thm. But the Secretary of State's position now is very different.
If we had had to make withdrawals at the time of confrontation we could have pointed to our heavy involvement in the Far East and in the Middle East and to the troubles in Cyprus and Guyana and said to our N.A.T.O. allies, "We are deployed all over the world shouldering defence responsibilities which are in the general interests of the European trading nations." We could have said that because it would have been true, and it would have been accepted.
But the Secretary of State is in a very different position now and, I think, a less

651
comfortable one. He will have to make his withdrawals from the Rhine Army against the background of one brigade already withdrawn and stationed in this country, against all the talk that we have heard from the Government about N.A.T.O. now being the main priority of their defence policy, and, worst of all, at a time when one of his main political objectives is to dissuade our allies in N.A.T.O. from thinning out and reducing their contributions to the alliance.
Why has this situation come about? Because of the determination of the Government, despite continuous warnings from these benches, to persist in constructing an order of battle for our defence forces which, as we suspected and have repeatedly said, leaves a totally insufficient margin for the occurrence of unforeseen emergencies. This is what has been done, and we are now reaping the fruits.
Another thing which surprised me and which will be of concern to the House is to know why, notwithstanding the 11 extra battalions in the United Kingdom, to which the Minister referred today, and the reduced commitments worldwide of which the Government boast, there is apparently, in the context of the Northern Ireland emergency, great difficulty about the arrangement of reliefs and the rotation and deployment of units generally. There is great difficulty about the handling of what is called the arms plot by the staff and the turbulence that always results from such difficulties.
Why should this be? I will tell the House. It is not on the basis of any complaint made to me. It is obvious what is happening when one goes and sees for oneself. As a result of the Government's new deployment worldwide there are now far fewer accompanied stations, fewer places where units can be deployed and have their families with them. Moreover, it is present policy to have fewer accompanied tours and to send larger numbers of units overseas without their families because it is cheaper to organise deployment in this way. The result is that great difficulties arise when units come home in the expectation of having some time with their families after a period abroad unaccompanied only to find that they have to go off again to somewhere like Northern
652
Ireland. There are family problems, compassionate cases, and difficulties with the weaker marriages which tend to break down, and so forth. We have large rear parties left behind and small strengths deployed on the ground. This is one of the consequences which have flowed from the Government's revised deployment.
One unit in Northern Ireland has had 10 months unaccompanied out of the last 18 months. That is not the worst. The Hampshires, who are coming back soon, have been unaccompanied for about 20 out of the last 21 months. This is very bad. We cannot expect to maintain and build up recruiting if these conditions obtain. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have something helpful to tell us about improving the state of accompaniment in Northern Ireland. It is important if we are to be there for some time.
So it is not true, as the Secretary of State pretends, that a reduction in known commitments automatically reduces a state of overstretch. There are other factors at work. I have mentioned one which the Government have chosen to ignore, despite continuous warnings.
I do not subscribe to the view that our forces never will be overstretched and never ought to be overstretched. Lord Watkinson, when Minister of Defence. used to say, with a great deal of truth, that if there were not some periods at which the forces as a whole were operating at full stretch then we had got too many and we were not organising ourselves properly. This is bound to hap pen sometimes. It happened in our day As a matter of history, at that time the forces were never better recruited.
I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give us one or two reassurances about the present position, and in particular about the position of the United Kingdom mobile force in the Strategic Reserve. I recollect the conditions in 1963 and 1964 when numerous commitments were on foot. We never reached the position where we could not put a brigade of the Strategic Reserve fully mobile into the field. We always had a mobile brigade left in reserve which could have been committed to a fresh operation had one blown up.
We are entitled to ask for an assurance that this is still the position. Do we still have uncommitted and available at least a brigade group of the Strategic

653
Reserve which is not involved in the emergency in Northern Ireland? Could we still now put one in the field? I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance, because we have commitments other than that in Ulster.
There is nothing whatever wrong with our troops in Ulster, either themselves, or the way in which they are being led and commanded. Their morale is good, and they are succeeding in their objective, but it is only too apparent that this new unforeseen commitment, coming at the culmination of a process of cuts and disbandments, has faced the Ministry with difficulties for which it was not prepared, difficulties of the kind about which we have consistently and continuously given them warning.
The hon. Gentleman said today that one could not provide against every contingency, that one could not have an infinite margin. It is true that we cannot have an infinite margin—nobody can afford that—but there must, none the less, be a margin to provide for the unseen. We on this side of the House believe that the Government have cut the margin too fine, and that before they implement any further plans to reduce it still further and to run it down they ought to pause and think again about the lessons which I hope the present situation will have brought home to them.
5.12 p.m.
Mr. Tom Driberg(Barking): In the last few months we have seen a number of expensive full-page advertisements placed in the newspapers by the Ministry of Defence. It is a matter not susceptible of absolute proof, but it is interesting to speculate whether the very welcome improvement in recruiting figures which my hon. Friend announced has anything to do with or is in some way a response to those advertisements.
I have always been rather sceptical about advertisements for the Army, the Navy, and so on, particularly the old-fashioned type of advertisement—" Join the Navy and see the world ". The advertisements to which I have just referred have pursued a completely new theme which may have surprised some readers of the newspapers, the theme of peace. They have emphasised the peacekeeping role of the Army and the Navy; and it may be—I throw this out simply as a possibility—that the idealism of
654
youth—which still exists despite all that we hear from disgruntled elders about the behaviour of teenagers—is more attracted to the forces the more their role is seen as a peace-keeping role rather than as a war-making one. Certainly they have been fulfilling a peace-keeping role admirably in Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the point about pay which was made by one hon. Gentleman opposite is perhaps not a very serious one. No doubt they ought to be receiving it, but if they have not yet done so it will be back-dated to 1st August so that they will get a bit more afterwards, anyway.
Our troops have been pursuing a peacekeeping role in Northern Ireland and in various other parts of the world—sometimes as part of a United Nations force —and anybody who has seen the admirable and wearisome job done over the last few years, for instance, by UNICYP, the United Nations force in Cyprus, to which we make the biggest contribution, will know that that is an extremely valuable role for the forces.
It is in that connection that I should like to make a point about pay, which the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) dwelt on a good deal. Certainly all of us realise the importance of good pay and conditions for the forces. Whatever the complications may be of the new arrangements, I agree that they must be in force by the deadline in April. That is essential. We must not break faith with the forces on that deadline.
It is only fair to the Government, however, to remind the House that there was a pretty substantial increase in pay only three or four years ago. I recall that, by great good fortune, I was travelling in a naval frigate in the Indian Ocean a few weeks before that pay increase was announced, and I had to submit to one of those rather alarming "Any Questions?" sessions at which there was a free-for-all questioning by the ship's company. Naturally one of the first questions was, "When are we going to get an increase in pay, and how much is it going to be?". I did not feel in a position to commit the Government or anybody else, and I said that I had not the faintest idea but that there ought to be one pretty soon: and, because I did not want to raise their hopes, I added that I should be surprised if it were more than 3½ per cent. Actually it was much more than

655
that and it was paid very soon afterwards, so I was delighted.
I want to mention pay in the context of the United Nations forces, to which we are now committed to make some contribution—and a very good thing too. So far as possible, we ought to try in future increasingly to equalise to some extent the pay and allowances of the various contingents in a United Nations force. As is well known, the United Kingdom contingent generally gets very much less than most other contingents. For instance, in UNICYP our troops get far less than the Canadians, the Danes, the Finns even, and so on. I am speaking of last year, when I was last in Cyprus; the actual contingents may have been changed to some extent by now, but I think that our chaps probably still get far less than the contingents from other nations. One can understand the Canadians or the Americans getting more, because the rates of nay of the forces are related to the cost and standard of living in the home country, but I still think that our troops, when they are in a United Nations force, ought to get a special allowance which will bring them up to the average of other contingents.
This discrepancy is taken in a very good-humoured way by our troops, but it seems to me that it is a bit hard. I remember seeing dinner being served in a UNICYP canteen one Christmas Day. It was a very good dinner indeed. The drink served (at that moment) was a glass of milk, but as each United Kingdom soldier came along in the line he was denied a glass of milk. It was a rather ridiculous little discrimination. As each Canadian, Dane, or Finn, came along he received a glass of milk, but the British soldier was told, "No milk for you, your Government do not provide for it". This seems rather mean and paltry. It is only a small example of the kind of discrepancy which ought to be increasingly remedied as we send more and more troops to serve with United Nations forces.
While I am on the subject of Cyprus, perhaps I might ask my hon. Friend to tell the House when he winds up the debate, whether there are at the moment any plans for the future of the British Military Hospital at Dhekelia. This is
656
a splendid hospital, as I know from personal experience. It is beautifully designed. It was built only a few years ago, and it is magnificently staffed; but owing to the run-down, it is almost redundant. Two or three of the top floors are empty. I think that there have been some informal discussions both with the Government of Cyprus and with the Americans, and that the Americans are very much interested in the future of this fine building.
It is possible that it could be a teaching hospital as the centre of a new university campus—perhaps partly financed by the Government of Cyprus, partly by ourselves, and party by the Americans—to which students could come from all over the Middle East, rather as they have been going for years to the American university at Beirut. This would be a valuable way of assisting the détente that has been slowly making progress in Cyprus. It would encourage people of different national origins perhaps young people from Greece and Turkey—to mingle as students in a friendly way. We might even find students from the Lebanon, Israel and other nearby countries getting together in this way. This could be a long-term contribution not only to education in the strict sense of the word but to relaxing tension in the Middle East.
I do not know if the Minister can comment on the possibility of such a project now, but the Government must be thinking of what to do with this magnificent hospital since it is no longer as fully needed for its original purpose as when it was built.
When my hon. Friend told us about the improvement in recruiting figures I was hoping—his remarks encouraged us to hope—for some concession for boy Service men. I appreciate the difficulty and I welcome the announcement that he is to set up a committee to look into the whole background of the subject. However, I still cannot help remembering two things that were said by Ministers representing Service Departments who have since changed their offices.
The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Navy Minister said in a debate on this subject, in effect, "We do not want to keep unwilling sailors in the Navy." Our late hon. Friend, Mr. Gerry Reynolds,

657
whose premature death is regretted and deplored by the whole House—he was a good man and a good Minister—made the remarkable statement that the compulsory 12-year service for a boy joining at the age of 15 was "morally indefensible" but that it had to be kept because of the risk of a mass exodus should it be relaxed.
I still think that there is some discrepancy between my hon. Friend's statement that very few are seriously discontented and that the great majority settle down, and the apprehension of a mass exodus if there were an option, as the Latey Committee recommended, at the age of about 18. We are not morally entitled to keep them in the Navy or Army compulsorily without giving them that option. I do not like a Government I support defending an action which they say is morally indefensible.
As the Minister seemed half to admit, the knowledge that they could get out if they found Service life unendurable might tend to encourage rather than discourage the recruitment of teenagers. Because of the publicity that has been given to various cases that have arisen, and through the activities of the National Council for Civil Liberties and the activities of hon. Members on this matter, these teenagers know that they are stuck in the Service for a long time unless they can go through the difficult process of getting a discharge or release. I believe that many more would be likely to join if they knew that an option existed. Possibly it would have to be a form of discharge by purchase, remembering that this already exists for compassionate and other cases.
In this connection I pay tribute to the Navy Minister and Army Minister, and his predecessor, for the personal care and consideration that they have given to the individual cases that hon. Members have brought to their attention. I am emboldened to think that a concession by the Government in this matter would tend to encourage rather than discourage recruitment by the fact that on balance—perhaps I should exclude hon. Members who represent naval towns like Portsmouth and Plymouth—each hon. Member gets very few of these cases compared with the total numbers in the Services —perhaps half-a-dozen a year, if that. I do not believe, therefore, that there
658
would be a great rush out of the forces if this option were granted at, say, 18.
It is not easy to get people out when one takes up their cases with one of the Service Ministers. I have had to take up more cases from the Navy than from the Army and more from the Army than from the Royal Air Force. There are probably more men of various ages who want release from the Navy and Army than the R.A.F., but I do not know the reason for this. One can but speculate; it may be partly because the R.A.F. is, or seems to be, a more modern and technologically better equipped service than the older Services.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: There is a simple explanation and it was touched on by the Minister; namely, that there is a smaller percentage of boy recruits into the R.A.F. than into the Navy.
Mr. Driberg: I was, however, speaking of Servicemen of all ages, not only of boy recruits. I believe that fewer men of all ages, proportionately to the numbers in the Services, are trying to get out of the R.A.F. than out of the other two Services. This may be partly because of wife trouble—long periods of service abroad—but, then, many airmen have been stationed in Singapore and other far-flung places.
I suspect that few men try to get out of the Royal Marines, which has notably the highest morale and esprit de corps of any of the Services. Even the number of cases concerning young Service men that have been taken up with my hon. Friends by the National Council for Civil Liberties—a number running into two or three figures—represents only a tiny percentage of the total number of men serving in the forces generally.
Often, not always, one finds that persistent absentees and deserters—who must surely cause more trouble for the military authorities than they are worth —are mentally and emotionally unstable. Indeed, I imagine that, for most admirals and generals, the knowledge that anybody wants to get out of their Service would be prima facie evidence of total insanity.
Cases of this kind usually require interviews with psychiatrists. In every such case that I have handled, the recommendations and reports of the Army or

659
Navy psychiatrists have invariably been totally contradicted by reports from civilian psychiatric consultants whom my hon. Friends who represent the Army and Navy have been good enough to allow my constituents to see also. I must not make any general charge against the Service psychiatrists, of course. No doubt they do their job creditably in many cases, but in the case of such constituents of mine as have been interviewed by them it has been a total waste of time, because their approach and attitude have been those of officers vis-à-vis other ranks, rather than of qualified doctors, which is what they are, vis-à-vis patients. When these Service men get to the civilian psychiatric consultant, there is a much more thorough and much better-balanced interview. At least, that is what I have found to be the experience of my constituents. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friends for arranging these interviews with the civilian consultants, because they have usually led to the release of the men concerned.
I regret that my right hon. Friend's predecessor presented the six-month concession to the House in a way which was slightly misleading to many people outside the Services, although not to those inside, because he did not mention age at all. He merely mentioned boy soldiers, and not everybody in civilian life knows the age at which a soldier ceases to be a boy soldier. But that is by the way.
He also used the old and familiar argument about the wastage of trained personnel. Of course, it is true that, if a boy has been trained for three years, say in electronics, his experience in electronics is lost to the Navy or the Army; but his knowledge, gained admittedly at the expense of the Services, will be of value in civilian industry. Why not? Surely we want as many well-trained specialists as possible working in industry. Good luck to the Services if they provide that training. There is nothing much to be upset about if they do sometimes lose it to civilian industry.
One final point, on which also I should like a reply from my hon. Friend: next year, there will almost certainly be a General Election. For the first time we are giving the vote at the age of 18. What arrangements are being made to enable Service men from the age of 18
660
upwards to vote? Is any effort being made to see that they are on an electoral register in the Services or at their homes, and that they have the chance to cast a postal or proxy vote? I am sure that arrangements must be in hand.
Further to that point, in view of the apathy and the political ignorance which we know to be widespread among young people and among some older people as well—will anything be done in the way of basic non-partisan education in Parliamentary democracy before these young people, in particular the soldiers of 18, come to vote? Some of them may not bother to vote, but others will. It would surely be a good idea to revive in a modest form something like the wartime A.B.C.A., the Army Bureau of Current Affairs—[Laughter.]—which did an admirable job during the war.
I note that hon. Members opposite laugh at the idea of political education for the young. They do not want the young to be politically educated, since they will not then vote Conservative, naturally. None the less, however they may vote in the end, it would be a good idea if they knew something of the elements of Parliament, Government, democracy and what it is all about, because at the moment many of them do not know and do not really care.
I end by repeating that it is not morally possible to defend a policy which a Minister has himself described as morally indefensible. That must mean, sooner or later, an option at 18.
5.35 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart(Beckenham): I share the rather altruistic enthusiaism of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that all those in the Armed Forces should record their votes at the next election, because I have very little doubt as to which way the majority of those votes will be cast—
Mr. Driberg: Did the hon. Gentleman really mean to say "because"?
Mr. Goodhart: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm was altruistic because, having met many Service men in the last couple of years, I am sure that the great majority of those votes would be cast for the party for which I stand.

661
Like the two Front Bench speakers, 1 also have seen something of our Armed Forces in Ulster. I was there a few days after the tragic riots in Londonderry and Belfast in August. It was inspiring to feel the way in which the atmosphere of terrible fear on both sides of the barricades had been calmed by the presence of British troops, but it was also dispiriting to be led past burned out houses in a British city by soldiers carrying submachine guns. It was an experience which one had had in Asia and Africa but not in a British city. I found my spirits daunted by that experience.
But in the last couple of months I have been perturbed by the stories coming from Ulster of the strain on our soldiers and of the overlong hours of duty which some of them have to undertake. Of course I accept that internal security duties are wasteful of manpower, but although the situation in Belfast is certainly sad, it is not overly complex from the point of view of technical internal security.
The Secretary of State has rightly pointed out that it takes 25 men to man a three-man barricade day and night, but at the moment I wonder whether a barricade policy makes sense. I appreciate that it is easy to make suggestions when one is not responsible and is far away, but I cannot help wondering whether our forces really are deployed as sensibly as they might be, and whether a more mobile military presence in the back streets of Belfast might be less irksome for all concerned. After all, militarily, we may, alas, be involved in Ulster for a very long time. I hope that our tactical deployment will show the intelligence, ingenuity and flexibility, as the situation changes, which is necessary.
Meanwhile, there have been two outstandingly important domestic events for our armed Services since we had our last season, as it were, of defence debates. First, there has been the widespread introduction of the three-year engagement into the infantry, the artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps. I have for some years advocated the introduction of this shorter engagement, and it would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that between March and August—and now, we hear, September as well—the gain in short-term recruiting has more than outdistanced the fall in long-term recruiting.
662
I wonder why the August and the September figures of recruitment were held up, in the case of August, until yesterday, and, in the case of September, until today. The Minister said that the reason was pressure of work. I can think of no work in the public relations section of the Ministry of Defence more important than presenting to the House and the country a clear picture of what is happening in recruitment. It seems astonishing that the figures should have been delayed for so long, because of, we are told, pressure of work. But still, I welcome the increase in recruiting which has been caused by the introduction of the three-year engagement period, which seems to me to be tar more in line with, so to speak, the ethos of modern youth, who appear, alas, to be so much more nomadic in instinct than we were when we were young.
I notice that in August, which by any standards was a calamitous month for recruiting—even by comparison with August 1968, itself a calamitous month —what really happened was not a fall in adult recruiting but a sharp falling off in junior recruiting. The Minister rightly underlined this afternoon the importance of junior recruiting for all the Armed Forces-70 per cent., as he said, in the Royal Navy, and 30 per cent. in the Army and the Royal Air Force. One can readily understand the inhibition which the Ministry of Defence suffers when it comes to the question of the Latey Report and the question of young men withdrawing easily from their engagements in the Armed Services.
I am surprised at the friendly reception which the Minister's announcement about the establishment of yet another committee has had in this House. I do not understand what it is that this committee is to investigate. Surely, all the facts are well known within the Ministry of Defence itself, and all that is required is a political decision one way or the other. I am suspicious about the reason for the establishment of this committee. I suspect that it will have a very large quorum and a membership of individuals living in remote parts of the British Isles, and I suspect that it will be encouraged not to report before the next General Election.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): The hon. Gentleman's natural cynicism brings me to my feet. Perhaps I can understand his cynicism, in a way, because that is an easy remark to make in a debate of this sort. But I assure that it is quite wrong that we know all the facts. The one fact not known is how really genuine is the desire of people at the age of 17 or 18 in wanting to leave the Services. One just does not know. It seems to us highly desirable, therefore, that a genuine and independent attempt should be made to find out.
Mr. Goodhart: I can understand, perhaps, the Minister's perplexity on this point, but I cannot understand how a committee will be able to adduce evidence of it. I presume that if one still needs information about it after all these years there could be interviews by experienced case workers or social workers going into the barrack rooms and speaking to those concerned. How a committee is to be able to investigate individual cases I still find somewhat perplexing.
The main domestic event for the Armed Forces since our last series of defence debates has been the publication of the Prices and Incomes Board Report on pay. Basically, it recommends a substantial movement towards a military salary. I have substantial doubts about whether this is the time to move in that direction. There is a great deal of fascinating information in the report itself. On page 81, for example, we learn that 26 per cent. of junior officers in the Army estimated that their income was 10 per cent. more than it actually was, and, moreover, a very substantial number of senior officers and senior N.C.O.s in all three Services estimated that their real income was 10 per cent. higher than it actually was. Perhaps some people will be sadly disillusioned by the introduction of a military salary.
The Minister was frank enough to admit that the proposals of the Prices and Incomes Board, which were foreshadowed in the Army Estimates debate last year, had been greeted with profound scepticism in the Services. There are various reasons for this. First, those in the Armed Forces realise that the introduction of a military salary will, if anything, sharpen the perpetual battle between the Ministry
664
of Defence and the Treasury, and they recognise that in its battles with the Treasury, certainly in the last five years, the Ministry of Defence has lost almost every round. Even if at the beginning the military salary looks pretty good, they have their doubts as to whether, after the reviews that follow, it will look quite so good at the end of two years or six years.
There is also the taxation problem, which is rarely mentioned by Ministers or in the Prices and Incomes Board Report. I was in the United States when that country made a major move towards a military salary for its forces, and it was then estimated that 50 per cent. of the increase in pay would be clawed back immediately in extra taxation. Naturally, this question worries those in the Armed Forces.
Next, there is the question of complexity. The move towards a military salary is supposed to be a move towards simplification, but I suspect that, as in so many moves supposed to bring about simpler procedures, in the long run it will lead to a much more complicated system. There is the whole "X" factor—the question of what is dangerous service and what is not, and all the problems in pay and accounting that will arise from that. I suspect that in future whenever a force goes into action it will have to fix its accountants at the same time that it fixes its bayonets.
One also wonders how much the charges will go up. We have been told that the salary will involve substantial increases in pay; we heard at the beginning of the debate that they would total £53 million. Is that a net or gross amount? Various charges will go up as well, so will the soldiers, sailors and airmen be £53 million better off at the end of the day or will a substantial proportion of that amount be clawed back in the increased charges?
I was depressed when the Minister of Defence for Administration, in his first appearance at the Dispatch Box in the place of the late Gerry Reynolds, whose premature death we all very much regret, should have shown in his reference to the reserve forces the same inflexible thinking that the Secretary of State has shown so often. There was the reference to the visit he had made to a Highland reserve unit, and how its members

665
knew exactly where they would go in a N.A.T.O. emergency, how they were going over to B.A.O.R., and how they were already familiar with the territory they would have to defend if a conflict broke out. But the whole point of the argument about reserves is that one cannot foretell the way in which a conflict may arise with such cerainty that one can say, "This unit will go there and defend this spot against an attack from that direction." There is uncertainty, and that is why next Wednesday we shall have the Second Reading of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill. The emergency in Northern Ireland was unexpected, so one found a need for more reserve forces to deal with a problem that had not been foreseen. This does not apply only to Ulster. Throughout the defence structure—
Mr. Richard: Since what the hon. Gentleman is now saying may be important, and may be read outside the House, I hope that he will make it clear that there is no question of the Ulster Defence Regiment being used for the sort of internal security duties the Regular Forces are now engaged on in Ireland. No doubt he will also want to make it clear that the whole object of the force is, as the Hunt Committee recommended, to provide a force in Ireland against a threat which Lord Hunt described as being of an armed guerrilla type. It is important that that should be made clear.
Mr. Goodhart: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification, but I am not so sure that one can draw an absolutely rigid line between sporadic guerrilla fighting in the countryside, say, and the throwing of petrol bombs outside a police barracks.
Captain L. P. S. Orr(Down, South): I think the Minister will agree that it says in the White Paper that the new defence force will not be used for riot duties but will be available to relieve the existing garrison forces which are to be used in supporting the police in riot duties. Therefore, my hon. Friend's argument is very relevant.
Mr. Goodhart: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support.
The point I wish to make is simply that in this complicated and dangerous world we cannot be certain where the threat will come from. We have had an example of that in the past few months
666
within our own islands. In those circumstances, the Government's action in the past five years in reducing the Territorial Army from the 115,000 men that it was in 1964 to the 47,000 we can muster now is one of the worst blemishes on a record which is wholly lamentable.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will understand if I do not deal with all his remarks. But I was interested in his comments on the announcement that my hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration intended to set up a Committee to examine the whole question of reluctant young Service men, and I was grateful to him for obtaining some elucidation on the precise purposes of the Committee.
I would like to devote all my speech to this one question, and particularly to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). I do not think that a sufficient number of hon. Members are aware that this country is alone in allowing young men to commit themselves at 15 to a contract which determines their lives for the next 12 years. I, and I am sure many hon Members on both sides of the House, certainly on the Liberal benches, regard this as a violation of human rights. It takes place in no other country. Hon. Members may reply that there is conscription in other countries, but conscription does not take place at so early an age.
I regard this as a contravention of the Infant Relief Act, 1874, which, the Minister will no doubt point out, is based on the doctrine that "an infant is of immature intelligence" and that he lacks discretion under the age of 18 and thus is not in a position to commit himself to a contract. It is therefore no wonder that the late Mr. Reynolds described this system as "morally indefensible". Indeed, if anything that is an understatement. It hardly surprises me that this matter is of so much public concern.
That public concern begins with the blandishments, the seductions, which are offered to young people. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking is not in the Chamber because he commended the focus of some of the advertising and I wish to take issue with him

667
on that point. May I draw attention to the I.P.C. publication Eagle. 1 do not suppose that this is bedside reading for the Minister, but if he has any occasion to look at the form of copy which appears in this comic paper, which is directed to adolescents and certainly to young people aged 14, 15 and 16, he may be surprised.
Let us consider the promise. The advertisement states,
" Mike Boswell's never bored nowadays ".
We all know that nowadays many young people in the Services are unsettled and bored. What is the promise? It is,
" Mike Boswell's routine at work includes weapon training "—
how exciting—
" map reading "—
he probably learned it in the Scouts—
" football, basketball and athletics. All this is aimed at teaching him to lead men in tomorrow's Army ".
The more sensitive boy is assured,
" He paints, too—it's all part of his army life."
He is assured that the remuneration will be considerable. Indeed, he is told,
" He gets enough money to enable him to save at least £30 a term. And he gets treated like a man. It's part of the training ".
That statement in the advertisement, which I regard as morally reprehensible, hardly squares with the reality. Perhaps it does for the majority of Service men, but I am sure that it is the experience of many Service men that that description is a mere fiction. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the opinion of two reluctant Service men on the form of advertisement which appears in the Eagle. The first letter which I quote is from a young man who deserted from the Navy. He writes,
" At this impressionable age I was only concerned with getting away from home and the whole romantic image of going to sea… Obviously I accepted the need for discipline, but, while my friends ashore were leading adult lives, we were still treated as boys, with what seemed petty and pointless restrictions, and no opportunity to think for ourselves."
Another reluctant Service man writes,
" Ask any psychiatrist or anyone else for that matter who understands the mechanism of the mind if an unsophisticated adolescent, intoxicated with propaganda, is fully equipped to make such an astronomical decision as to surrender nine years plus of his life to something wholly foreign and unfamiliar. The death sentence is a mere 15 years."
668
Hon. Members should be aware that young people aged 15, 16 and 17, particularly if they come from a working class background, have no understanding of a time scale. I say this because before I came into the House I was a sociologist and I taught educational sociology. I am well aware of the work done in this field by Professor Epstein who has demonstrated systematically that the thought patterns of working-class boys differ considerably from those of boys of the middle-class in that a working-class boy thinks "existentially". He has no sense of time or of career or of future, unlike the middle-class boy. That is one reason why middle-class boys do much better at school than do working-class boys. My hon. Friend should be aware that young boys of 15, 16 and 17 have an inadequate comprehension of their destiny over the net nine to 12 years.
We should also consider the reasons why young men join the Services. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his decision to set up the Committee and I am delighted—if 1 correctly interpret his intervention—that the Committee are to undertake a more systematic inquiry than we have held so far. I hope that the Committee will investigate—there is some evidence on the point—why young men at 15, 16 and 17 join the Services. No one can deny that one of the reasons is parental tension and a desire to leave home. A second reason is probably dictated by the circumstances of individual children. I should like my hon. Friend's Committee to consider, for example, the number of orphans who enlist into the Services at an early age, and I hope that his Committee will also inquire closely into the encouragement and the kind of advice given by the various institutions which are responsible for orphans. One hears stories which suggest that far too glibly these institutions suggest that the careers of their charges should lie in the Armed Services.
A third reason, which I mention with some feeling, is that many young men are pressurised to join the Services by parents, particularly fathers, who have had distinguished and satisfying careers in the Armed Services. I say that with some feeling because my father was an officer in the Royal Flying Corps and I

669
know the pressure to which I was subjected when at the age of 18 I was conscripted into the Air Force. I wanted to be a Bevin boy, but it was made clear to me by my father that if I volunteered to work in the mines I should never again cross the threshold of his house. I know how deeply many parents feel on this matter. I was not strong enough to resist. I went into the Service and I regretted it and loathed every minute that I spent in the Service. In retrospect, I wish that I had been stronger in character, had stood out against my parents and had worked in the mines. I am sure that 1 should have found the experience far more meaningful than I found the two years which 1 wasted in the Services. I hope that my hon. Friend's Committee will look into that point.
My hon. Friend will agree that there are a multiplicity of motives which lead young men to join the Services. Are they appropriate? I hope that his Committee will direct their attention to that question. My hon. Friend may very well find that the motives and reasons, such as I have attempted briefly to outline, do not point to a Service career. I should like to feel that young men are not subjected to these pressures. I hope that his Committee will also recommend that it is incumbent on the Service authorities to ensure that when a young man enlists for 12 years the terms of his service are spelled out.
I have received from the Ministry of Defence the attestation paper. I am sure that many of my right hon. Friend's advisers will have studied this document and done their best to simplify the phraseology and the syntax. Nevertheless, I put it to him that the terms of this document cannot be fully comprehended by a young man of 15, 16 or 17.
Many young Service men are under the mistaken impression that they can buy themselves out. As we are to have new regulations, I hope that there will be a new system of induction and that the terms will be precisely spelled out and that when a young man signs on, he will be put in a room for ten minutes and told to read and digest the document, and asked to make a précis of it so that it can be seen that he knows what he is letting himself in for.
670
One senses from reading this document that Service men, certainly younger Service men, have no proper appreciation of its meaning. When a young man commits his life to the extent of 12 years, as so many of them do, he ought to be made privy to the commitment which he is undertaking. He should be aware of his rights and the fact that he may contract out after three months or six months; it should be made clear that he has no automatic right of purchase, and many Service men are under the mistaken impression that they have such rights.
They should also be acquainted with their limited rights in respect of protest. In this context I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter written by a Captain R. P. Clayton to a sister of a reluctant Service man. He said:
"… the aggressive attitude taken by the National Council for Civil Liberties in their rather misdirected efforts to assist him has, in fact, lost him sympathy and has indeed made it more difficult for those who are in a position to help …
He needs a great deal of help and encouragement from his family if he is to give up his unsettling association with the National Council for Civil Liberties, regain his health and re-establish himself in the Navy."
It is outrageous that a serving officer should write that kind of letter. The National Council for Civil Liberties provides an excellent social service in that it assists Service men, many of whom are not clear about precisely what their limited rights are. That form of intimidation should cease.
Similarly, the intimidation of Service men in respect of writing to their Members of Parliament should cease. I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear that Service men who wish to purchase themselves out of the Service do not prejudice their position by contacting the Council or a Member of Parliament.
In this context I must draw my hon. Friend's attention to what must have been a belly laugh by Miss Sparrow, the recipient of Captain Clayton's letter, when she picked up her Guardian on 7th November and read a Services advertisement saying:
" We've plenty of things that we need changing in this country, and we cherish the right of protest that Speakers' Corner exemplifies. Speaking freely is our way of changing things. But there's one cause of protest that doesn't exist here: the stifling of protest itself.

671
Do you perhaps take freedom of speech for granted?"
That is a very subtle approach and it may be effective with some readers of the Guardian, but I am sure that some Service men, and certainly Mr. and Mrs. Sparrow, would have read that with considerable cynicism.
I turn to another matter mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking and urge on my hon. Friend the need to introduce an independent element into reviewing the applications which his Department receives. My hon. Friend hinted more strongly than I am inclined to do that Service officials, the faceless men, are not as sympathetic as they might be when reviewing cases. My hon. Friend instanced reports of a Service psychiatrist differing from those of a civilian psychiatrist. But it is not only Service and civilian psychiatrists who differ. Medical officers of health differ, and I should like to exemplify that by quoting the case of a young man, whom I shall call Mr. X, because, I gather, he is now on the run.
He has been examined by a Service doctor and by a civilian doctor. The two opinions in juxtaposition make my point very well. The Service doctor:
"This young man is suffering from a slightly slipped disc which would clear up with a course of exercises. He was pronounced fit four service and there was no necessity to cancel his draft."
The civilian doctor:
"This patient is in my mind not fit for peace time active service in one of H.M. Forces. He seems very introspective and much concerned with himself. In my own experience as an Army M.O., I have seen quite often that even the smallest physical inability can be the source of a course of unstable physical trauma and a very damaging effect to his surroundings. In my view this man should be discharged from H.M. Forces on medical grounds."
When my hon. Friend makes his decision in this case, he will doubtless be privy only to the opinion of the Service doctor. Obviously, he could not challenge that opinion and he will make the decision against the man.
If there were opportunities for independent examination, for independent review, the kind of evidence which I have cited of a contrary opinion—which of course would be open to challenge—could be put to the test. We would all feel that the system was far happier and more just.
672
Many People fell that the Services have a somewhat distorted view of compassion.I must tell my hon. Friend that many reluctant young Service men are of the impression, as is the National Council for Civil Liberties, that letters from mothers are completely ignored. I am horrified by this. Naturally, mothers have feelings and mothers know their sons very well. It is a matter of regret if such letters are automatically discounted. This is a general view and I sincerely invite my hon. Friend to say something on this matter and to say that the letters of mothers to Members of Parliament supporting the claims of sons should rot be ignored.
I realise that my hon. Friend has a problem. I was depressed when I picked up my Daily Telegraph this morning and read of the recruiting figures. I was delighted by the more encouraging figures in September. It would be irresponsible if those of us who are urging a relaxation of the system did not suggest some alternative. I wish to touch only in passing on two matters.
Does my hon. Friend think that he has done enough in the way of substitution? Before the debate, I took the trouble to ask the Library to work out the ratio of persons in civilian employment attached to Her Majesty's Forces to enlisted men, and to do that through the countries of N.A.T.O. I know that we have been extremely successful in substituting civilians for enlisted men, but I wonder whether more could be done.
Secondly, perhaps my hon. Friend could look more sympathetically at the applications by Service men who wish to terminate their service if they undertake to enlist in the Reserves. I may be speaking in ignorance here, it may be that this is already done. I feel that many Service men would accept a period in the Reserve if they could secure their release.
I welcome the setting up of the Committee although I felt that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) made a valid point when he said that we already know a great deal about the problem. I hope also that the Committee will be empowered to commission research and that this will focus attention on some of the questions I have raised. I trust my hon. Friend will endorse the comment of his predecessor

673
and agree that this is a morally indefensible system. It is a form of bondage that we, if we genuinely subscribe to a free society should abolish with all possible speed.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that many hon. Gentlemen wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches will help.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Michael Hamilton (Salisbury): I greatly respect the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson). I searched throughout his speech for something with which I could agree. I hope he will forgive me if I say that the only thing with which I really felt myself in sympathy was when he told us of his father who encouraged him to go into the Services rather than to enlist in the "Bevin Boys". I hope that he will forgive many of us on this side of the House if we appear to concentrate on getting good material into the Services rather than on facilitating the release of the misfits whom he has in mind.
Mr. John Mott (St. Ives): Does my hon. Friend really believe that the misfits, and I speak as an ex-Regular soldier, are helpful to the Services? That is the logical conclusion of what he said.
Mr. Hamilton: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I am merely saying that tonight I prefer to concentrate on the manpower shortage.
This is a very suitable subject, because I dare say that the majority of us on Sunday attended Remembrance Day services. My constituency of Salisbury is a garrison city, embracing the largest Army training-ground, Salisbury Plain. It has Bulford, Larkhill, Porton, the Joint Welfare Establishment, Porton Down, and many other places whose names are included in the vocabulary of the Services.
I have represented Salisbury in this place for slightly under five years. That is five Remembrance Day parades. It has been extraordinary to see the change. I remember that when I first went to these parades there was always the Commander of Strategic Headquarters, which is in my constituency, or the Lord Lieutenant on the dais in the market place, taking the salute, and there would be a sizeable marchpast. In the space of those five years it has been like snow
674
on the face of the desert. The Regular soldier has disappeared. He is not available.
Instead, we have the British Legion, all credit to it, a few veterans of the First World War, the Old Contemptibles, we have a party of Dunkirk veterans and a handful of gallant ladies. Last Sunday I spoke to one lady who had driven an ambulance in France in 1914. But the Regular soldier has gone. I do not imply any criticism; the Regular soldier must be where he is most needed. What I am saying is that it serves to remind us—because this pattern is repeated up and down the country—what a very rare sight a Regular soldier in England is.
I have great sympathy with the Government over the Irish problems, dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden). The conditions facing our troops are very difficult and demanding. I find myself in some disagreement with my right hon. Friend when he says that the position was unforeseen. He may be right, but I was in Northern Ireland several times before the war and I remember being taken to parts of Belfast and shown areas where the cobblestones had been concreted over. This was not just routine road maintenance. It was to take the violence out of rioting.
My right hon. Friends says that it was unforeseen, I do not know. I suspect emergency has never been very far below the surface there. The trouble has boiled up again this summer. We have 10 infantry battalions there and fully stretched they are. I see no early prospect of their withdrawal. I do not say that the problem could have been foreseen, but I claim that it serves to illustrate how perilously narrow is the margin today.
The Minister pointed out that the Army suffers nothing in quality at the moment. This particularly applies to Strategic Command, which I know well, and where the staff officers are of the highest calibre. If another emergency in some other theatre were to blow up in these winter months where we would go for soldiers, I do not know.
Mr. Ramsden: My hon. Friend says that he disagrees with me, but he is helping my argument because if the emergency could have been foreseen it

675
makes the Government's position all the more culpable.
Mr. Hamilton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. If we look at the percentage of the population of this country recruited into the Regular Army and compare it with France, Italy Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands, we find that the figure is derisive. In terms of manpower we put about half the effort into N.A.T.O. that our fellow members of the alliance do. We have fewer soldiers in Germany today than in 1964. What was it that the Secretary of State for Defence said only recently in Munich? He said that N.A.T.O. is outnumbered, outnumbered on the central front, in infantry formations in the ratio of two to one, in armoured formations by nearly three to one and in the event of mobilisation the disparity increases.
What is our answer to that? I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said in Munich. Those nice old words—" Our stress will be on the strength of our conventional forces "—this it was that figured in the Labour Party's election manifesto in 1964. Some stress! How hollow that sounds today. The Government's reply to the situation over N.A.T.O. is to reduce our forces by 25 per cent.
There are still a good many Members who served here in the 1930s and they will not need reminding of the events at that time, of the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the Anschluss, the rearmament of Germany—
Mr. Driberg: Nor of which Government was in power.
Mr. Hamilton: I regret that I did not hear that intervention.
Those were times when we were parlously weak and were unable to influence the course of events in Europe. The war came and, by the grace of God, we somehow survived it. But we swore that we would never be so unprepared again. What was the strength of our Regular Army in 1936, which for us was a moment of supreme weakness? The answer is that we had 50,000 more in the Regular Army than we have today. We should keep that very sobering thought in mind.
676
I turn briefly from the general to the particular. I ask the Minister to take careful note of what I am about to say, because the treatment of members of the Services has a direct bearing on the vital question of recruitment.
Last summer I raised in the House the case of a Regular officer of much brilliance who had given his adult life to the Army and whose career at the age of 39 suddenly crashed in ruins because 17 years previously he had been taken prisoner with his regiment in Korea. At that time very little gratitude was extended to him. In fact, no hand was stretched out to help him, and he, his wife and four young children sailed from Southampton to Australia.
But injustice remains injustice, whether it was last year, this year or next year. I therefore made a special request to the Secretary of State for Defence. I asked that Lord Radcliffe and his four colleagues be invited to reconvene for a day to consider the disability which a young soldier once captured by Communists must suffer, regardless of the passage of years, of subsequent conduct and of whether there were colleagues in the same regiment in captivity who could testify. I made my request on 2nd August last year and I still await a reply.
Discussions took place within the Ministry of Defence, and the views of the Minister of Defence were forwarded to the appropriate interdepartmental committee. This much I was told. But the months have passed. I was asked to be patient, and I was patient. In March of this year the Secretary of State wrote to me saying:
"I hope to be in a position to reply fully by the end of April".
April came and went. In October, the Secretary of State wrote to me saying:
I fully expect to be able to answer in two weeks or so ".
But again the time limit has passed.
I am still hoping that the Secretary of State will invite Lord Radcliffe to consider this matter. Clearly, it cannot rest as it is. I am concerned today at the treatment accorded to my constituent. But his situation is not unique. It could arise again elsewhere. Any hon. Member could be visited this weekend by a member of the Services in an identical position whose career may suddenly be ruined.

677
Why does my request remain unanswered? Why the indecision? Why the delay in inviting the views of the Committee on Security Procedures? Are not these men of the utmost distinction —Lord Radcliffe, Field Marshal Templer and the three others? Can there be a tribunal of more independent objective judgment? Is not mine a wholly reasonable request? Could there be a comparably satisfying solution to the problem and, if so, why the hesitation?
I would have expected the Secretary of State for Defence to welcome the earliest possible vindication of the actions of his Department. But perhaps after one and a half years I may be forgiven for wondering whether there is something which is better withheld from Lord Radcliffe, a slight irregularity perhaps which Lord Radcliffe and his committee might not approve.
I wish merely to place the situation today on the record and to beg the Secretary of State for Defence to put an end to such uncertainty.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Atkins(Preston, North): I do not want to deal in detail with the main theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton), because I am chiefly interested in developing the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was a little unfair about the Labour Party's defence policy of 1964. That policy was aimed at developing the conventional forces and not wasting money on the further development of nuclear forces. France has tried to go ahead with both and has failed with both. She does not have a credible nuclear deterrent. On the other hand, her conventional forces have suffered.
I am not sure what the hon. Member for Salisbury has in mind, but if he is thinking in terms of expenditure we still spend as a proportion of our gross national product, a great deal of money on armaments. We spend more than, for instance, any continental country—in fact, more than most countries in the world. We probably come after the United States and Portugal.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing(Hendon, North): What about Russia?
Mr. Atkins: I am thinking of the Western world, because we do not know with certainty what the Russian costs are.
The hon. Gentleman may have in mind the fact that British forces are now more concentrated. A major difference between the two front benches is the question of an east of Suez policy. It is arguable whether to concentrate our forces and withdraw them from east of Suez makes them a more credible force. It is not for me to say whether the more we extend our forces the weaker they become. I know that when we debate these matters with hon. Members opposite there is a lot of experience among them—a lot of "glittering brass ", if I may put it that way. But I repeat what I said in a defence debate last year.
Lord Montgomery has said in another place that the numbers of our conventional forces are too great and that we should concentrate on a highly professional force with smaller numbers but very mobile, in fewer bases, particularly in this country, and that we would thereby have a stronger conventional arm than we have today. He was speaking in terms of forces of about 150,000. That is a view of an authority. I would hesitate to express it as my view because I am inexperienced in these matters, but, coming from Lord Montgomery, it is an opinion which needs to be heeded.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking for introducing the question of the reluctant young Service man. I agree with so much that he said that there is little for me to say, so my contribution will be brief, but I wish to substantiate his case by dealing with a case I was reminded of by a letter I received only two days ago. I think that all hon. Members will agree and to some extent it must be a compliment to the Armed Forces that there are very few reluctant young Service men. My experience of complaints has been even less than my hon. Friend's. I suppose that on average I have received one a year. Nevertheless, we in this House are concerned with not merely with numbers but with the distress of individuals, however humble they are.
I have heard from this young man's father. He has been expelled from the forces, sent out in disgrace. His father first raised this matter with me about a year ago. The young man was always

679
deserting. He deserted many times and was caught and taken back. I raised the case with the Minister, but the report from his officers was that the young man was potentially good Service material. They thought that his objection to the Army was merely temporary and that he was influenced by his mother and father and friends, but would soon settle down in the Army and do well. However, he continued to desert and eventually he committed some crime or other which enabled him to get out. Now his father is in great distress. Because of his record, this young man finds its difficult to obtain employment. He has no unemployment pay and he does not even have adequate clothing. He left the Army quickly and has no civilian clothes. If his reputation has suffered, so has the reputation through his treatment of the Army.
It is claimed that very much money is spent on training young people especially in technical training in the Armed Forces, and that is true. If too many young Service men leave after that training there is a loss to the Army even if there is not a loss to civilian life. Nevertheless, I wonder, what the loss to the Army is of keeping a reluctant young Service man with the military police following him all over the country. This might happen either, nine or ten times in a year. It also has a bad effect on the morale of his unit. In this way more harm would be done to the Army and more cost incurred to the Army than if in such a case the young man were released.
I understand that there is to be a more flexible system of recruitment and the optional period during which a young man can consider whether he should stay in the Army has been lengthened from three to six months. I urge the Minister to try to make a system of interviewing more liberal. It seems that too often young men are declared to be suitable material when they are not suitable. It seems that the system of devaluation of the military potential of the reluctant young Service man is less generous than it used to be.
When a young man is discharged from the Army, after having failed to get out in any other way, the effect on him and on his family must be terrible. Although this may seem a small problem in numbers, I hope that the Minister will give it his
680
attention. If we continue with the same system more and more young men will feel forced to commit crime so that they can get out of the forces. It I mention methods which are used for getting out of the Army I do not think I shall be causing any danger. It is well known that today there are undesirable means of getting out, such as drug taking, an addiction to Communism, or homosexual activities. Things of that nature enable a young man to get out. Some of these practices are increasing enough already without the help of the system.
Mr. John Lee (Reading): Was there not an even more undesirable way a few years ago—making oneself a candidate for Parliament?
Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of all the practices I have mentioned, I think that I should be right to keep that one quiet, in view of the approach of a General Election. Without pretending that this is an enormous problem as to numbers, it is nevertheless a great problem because of the hardship and distress which is caused to individuals.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins(Derbyshire, West): The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Ronald Atkins) has again touched on an issue which has been occupying the minds of most of his hon. Friends. He has put it in a more reasonable and balanced way than perhaps the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) did. I think that it is agreed on both sides of the House that the Services do not wish to continue to take in misfits. They cause trouble and are best out of the Services. The problem is to identify them and to decide at what stage they are misfits.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is setting up a committee to deal with this question. There is also the safeguard in the six months' period at the start of the young man's service, when he can decide whether he is to stay in the Army or not. Perhaps the committee will have some wise ideas on how to identify this element and get it out of the Services before too much damage is done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Michael Hamilton) mentioned another injustice. These are some of the issues which may explain the difficulties

681
we have had in recruiting, but they are not the only ones. There is the injustice felt by the misfit who wants to get out of his unit, but there are other factors which have made the recruiting figures look extremely sad and sorry. I welcome the fact that in September we did rather better, but we are still not recruiting anything like enough to make up for the shortfall or to enable us to fulfil commitments.
This has been emphasised in what has gone on in Northern Ireland during recent months. Almost everything that needs to be said on that subject has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) and I wish to make only two comments. I have a personal interest, as I have a son serving with the Army there. He has been there since August. Conditions for Service men have not been good. The Minister was right in saying that they have not been good. They are better than they were, but there is a long way to go if the size of the force, 10 battalions with auxiliaries, is to continue to do the job throughout the winter months.
My second point, purely in passing, concerns the extra pay promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to the troops serving in Northern Ireland. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. An awkward and strange precedent has been set, but this has been announced by the Secretary of State and I am sure that he will honour his undertaking. The only point I made in my intervention was that it has not yet been honoured. I am quite certain that it will be honoured and back-dated to August, and I suggest only that this should be done rapidly and before Christmas.
Mr. Hattersley: May I put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest? An instruction was given to paymasters on 24th October. It is not a matter of the hon. Gentleman's certainty that my right hon. Friend will honour the obligation. Grateful though we are for that certainty, the obligation has been honoured.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am delighted to hear it. From a telephone call yesterday I understood that up to that moment it had not yet been paid to any ranks.
The situation in Northern Ireland shows clearly the over-stretching of our forces.
682
Recruitment has gone down, although it is better now, but we are still short, and cannot continue in this state of overstretch. We have our commitments overseas in other theatres and indeed I shall argue shortly that they should certainly be continued beyond 1971 although on a reduced scale. But if an emergency such as Northern Ireland can over-stretch us to the extent it has, we shall be unable to fulfill them even now. The Minister of State pleaded in defence that this emergency was unique, but every emergency is unique; there is no such thing as one emergency being unique. Look at Kenya, Malaysia and elsewhere. I do not believe that the pay increase about to be made in April will necessarily improve recruitment sufficiently to fulfil our obligations. The hon. Gentleman's calculation of the increase was £82 million, including the X factor. Although this is quite sizeable, it still alone will not be sufficient.
Most of our Strategic Reserve has been committed to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Defence, in answering Questions on the use of our Strategic Reserve in Northern Ireland, seemed to deny that the parachute battalions employed in Northern Ireland were those which had been committed to N.A.T.O. Strategic Reserve. He later corrected this in a Written Answer to a Question which I put down. The Strategic Reserve which he has assigned to N.A.T.O. hardly exists; it is not there to be used should an emergency arise within the N.A.T.O. area as most of this Strategic Reserve has been committed to deal with the emergency in Northern Ireland.
Although the hon. Gentleman spoke of concentrating here at home and in Europe he is still not able to fulfil our obligations because of the position into which he has got our forces. That is the main charge which I make against the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend. This is a "nuts and bolts" debate, whereas we should be criticising the Secretary of State and his colleague for putting the defence of the country into a state where it cannot fulfil its obligations so that even the State itself could be at risk should an emergency arise.
I do not deny that the Services are well armed, that morale is in most cases reasonably good, that the troops are well trained, but that they are insufficient I

683
am certain. It is not their fault. The hesitations, the cuts and the changes that have taken place since the Secretary of State took over four and a half years ago are the main cause of the low recruitment figures. Another cause is that young men like adventure and serving overseas. They do not now have an opportunity for doing this, and will not in the future. I do not argue that we should retain forces in the Far East so as to give young men the opportunity of serving overseas, far from it, but if the two coincide, all to the good, especially where it serves our best interests. Perhaps a moral can be drawn from the fact that the emergency in Northern Ireland started in August and the September recruiting figures bounded up.
I do not want to repeat all the arguments about the Far East. But during the Recess I, with some of my colleagues, went to Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. I am convinced that the situation in the Far East, Singapore, Malaysia and that area is not as stable as would appear on the surface. There is a threat of subversion from the North where, for example, there are 1,000 armed Chinese on the Malaysia-Thai border. I believe that the theory that with a possible American withdrawal there will be gradual absorption of other countries through Communist infiltration is a distinct possibility—the dominating theory, in fact. In Singapore and Malaysia, for which we have certain responsibilities, and which are members of the Commonwealth, the situation is of the gravest danger.
I will not weary the House with all the consultations which we had when we were there they were extensive and I am more than grateful for them. As a result of those consultations I believe that the policy of complete withdrawal by 1971 and the taking over by Australian and New Zealand combined forces whilst we ourselves maintain a general capability to go out there, is completely insufficient.
The political leaders in Malaysia and Singapore are extremely unhappy about this. We cannot physically do this—acclimatisation is only one of the difficulties—and the political leaders of the two countries firmly believe that, if we withdraw completely by 1971 and merely
684
give a promise of continued interest, Australia and New Zealand will be incapable of and indeed refuse to fulfil that role, even on a much smaller scale, in which event East and West Malaysia and Singapore will be a prey to subversive influences. Both leaders said that without the physical presence of this country and our Commonwealth partners, Singapore and Malaysia would be incapable of withstanding the slightest puff of hostile wind. What an enormous loss that would be.
We shall later be debating the cost of this and how it can be done and I will not weary the House now, but they are great and profound issues. In all sincerity I believe that our withdrawal and our continued insistence on withdrawal by 1971 will do the greatest disservice to the people in those countries and to our own interests there. I do not believe that the cost will be anything like as great as the Secretary of State has claimed—£400 million. My best estimate for a combined force with our Commonwealth partners, is about £30 million.
I want now to speak of the Gurkha Brigade in Hong Kong. I had the pleasure of seeing it in the New Territories. All the Gurkha battalions are to be concentrated in the New Territories by the middle of 1970. These are splendid troops. I have no need to go into their quality now. But the Secretary of State cannot hope to maintain the Gurkha Brigade in the New Territories of Hong Kong if there is no other station on which the Gurkhas can serve. To hold the four battalions of these excellent fighting troops in the New Territories permanently—for ever more and a day, amen—means that the Brigade will literally die away.
I hope—indeed, I am sure—that the conditions of their barracks will be improved. This is not a problem in itself, but merely a question of spending more money. But it is the mere physical fact of the Gurkha Brigade being there, having to stay there for ever. If only there could be an alternative station for them —with one battalion serving, say, in Malaysia perhaps at the Jungle Warfare School, or in Singapore or Brunei—with the battalions being interchangeable—that might be sufficient. But it would give an interest and useful alternative rÔle.

685
There is also dissatisfaction, which I found to my surprise, amongst other ranks concerning what is happening in the Kingdom of Nepal in relation to the Gurkha pensioners from the days when I was in the Gurkhas and who are now living in their homeland. Their standard of living and the value of their pension had not been maintained and there is a good deal of grumbling within Nepal among these ex-soldiers who served us so well and truly. Surely this can be looked into and put right.
Basically, my charge against the Government is that they have not kept our defence forces in a state where they can fulfil their obligations either at home or overseas. One cannot bribe men to join the Services. One has to give them something worth while to do. The Secretary of State has failed to do this. I hope that, as a result of debates like this, we can show the Government and the country what mistakes the Government have made and the danger in which they have placed the country. We surely cannot look forward to having them in power much longer because our lives and livelihood are in danger because of them.
7.3 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: I do not believe that we could have afforded to have right hon. Members opposite in power much longer, for they would have wrecked the economy. The proposals they have made for substantially increasing public expenditure have given me no confidence that they have learnt any lessons since they went into opposition.
My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration said that the solution of the Services' recruiting problem can only be marginally affected by increases in salary, and I think I agree. He also said that one of the factors giving rise to improved recruiting was the status of the Armed Forces in our public life. With that judgment, I wholeheartedly agree, because he then proceeded to give the August recruiting figures followed by the September recruiting figures, indicating a 100 per cent. and more improvement.
The reason for this improvement was that, between the two sets of figures, we had the military security operation in Northern Ireland. which showed the British Army in an extremely favourable
686
light. Our troops there have been doing a first-class job. As I have had to visit Northern Ireland with a certain amount of regularity over the past two or three months for various reasons, I do not wish to speak in the debate without placing on record my admiration for the way the Army has handled a very difficult situation in Belfast, Londonderry and elsewhere.
When the troops arrived, they immediately helped to still the griping fears on both sides of the barricades in the affected areas. Subsequently, as a result of the way they have carried out their duties, they have given everyone involved in the Northern Ireland problem, and who wishes to see it solved peacefully and satisfactorily, time needed to work—and time was one of the factors in very short supply at one stage in that unhappy country.
But it should not be assumed that, just because the operation has gone well, it has gone smoothly and without any problems or troubles. That is far from being the case. Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the conditions in which the troops have been living for the past two or three months have been lacking in the amenities they are entitled to expect. I know that my hon. Friend has been out there and will make every effort to ensure that the conditions in which the troops are expected to serve will be considerably improved before the onset of winter.
There is another side to the operation. It is admitted by most people who have ever undertaken the task that sentry duty is one of the most tedious duties ever invented by the military mind for its minions. A good part of the operation for the troops has consisted in the unglamorous task of standing at street corners, laden with military equipment, in all sorts of weather, trying to while away the time until the relief comes along.
Hitherto, such operations have been conducted in other parts of the world, it must be remembered. I cannot speak from experience, but I have no doubt that being abused in Arabic or Adeni is unpleasant but certainly preferable to being abused in English which one can understand and in Northern Ireland there are people who have not been above doing that to our troops there. Indeed,

687
some of our troops have actually been under fire there, and they have conducted themselves with great restraint and devotion.
There is another problem. I believe that the Army's desire to behave as a neutral was accepted by the great majority of the people in Northern Ireland, but on both sides there was a small minority who regarded the Army's neutral posture as being one in which the Army did its best to be beastly to the other faction. That led to problems as well.
However, the operation had been conducted with considerable efficiency. I was in Belfast during the most bitter rioting in Shankill and was vastly impressed by the way in which we were able to build up a picture of how the situation was developing as a result of regular and reasonably accurate reports from the Army Command to our little post. Without the Army performing this function, I do not believe that we would have been able to build up a picture as successfully as we did because there did not seem any other channel in existence through which the same information could have been conveyed with the same accuracy.
In defence debates, I have always shown interest in what is called "Opmac".
Mr. R. Chichester-Clark(Londonderry): While expressing my admiration for the troops, as the hon. Gentleman has done, may I ask whether he is aware that among the privations they suffered was leafleting and persuasion by, among others, a Member of Parliament who tried to ask them to desert and join in supporting the cause she supported?
Mr. Moyle: I have no personal knowledge of that occasion. If it happened, it is another example of the way in which our troops have carried on under considerable provocation.
I turn to the "Opmac" side of the situation. My hon. Friends know that I have always been interested in this side of military activities since I have been taking part in these debates. As the situation develops in Northern Ireland, it is to be hoped that tension will be reduced. Obviously, at this stage of the proceedings, it is too much to expect that General Freeland and his officers
688
will want to take on any more commitments. But if tension is reduced, it is probable that the Northern Ireland garrison will remain in somewhat greater strength than it has had in the past, and it seems to me that there is a role for the troops to play which has not yet been much in evidence.
The Army will be more successful in carrying on its functions in Northern Ireland if it builds up contacts with the whole community. It is possible for a Catholic child in Northern Ireland to spend a great part of his life without ever making friendly contact with a Protestant child, and vice versa, though it would be wrong at this juncture to discuss who is responsible for the situation or the wisdom of it.
Against that, it must be borne in mind that the Army usually has considerable resources in terms of sporting equipment, and so on, to provide facilities, instructors, training in adventure and that sort of activity. If those resources could be directed to the youth of Northern Ireland on a non-sectarian basis, the Army could make a considerable contribution to community relations during the period immediately following the present emergency.
Mr. Ramsden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, because I meant to but did not have time. The Army has, in fact, begun to do this, and it would help the House if we could hear something about the finance which it is proposed to make available to support these projects.
Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was aware that the Army was beginning to undertake this work, but I wanted to give it a favourable wind and point out that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland there is a shortage of institutions and bodies with sufficient trust to put forward this sort of sporting or adventure-based approach to the problem of community relations. It seemed to me that the Army was ideally cut out for the rÔle.
I want to add my comments to what has been said from this side of the House about the problem of young boys who enter the Services for training at the age of 15 and are committed to very lengthy contracts of service as a result. I have

689
listened carefully to the arguments of expediency put forward by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench on behalf of the present practice of the Services. Much as I want to be fair to them, I am forced to the conclusion that the Services rely on a strong position which an historical situation has given them to hang on to a solution which is administratively convenient and saves them having to think too deeply about the recruitment of young people.
For a number of years, I was partially responsible for recruitment and training in a large industry. Nothing which my hon. Friends have told me has led me to believe that the problems faced by the forces are different in essence from those faced by employers of labour in industry generally.
We used to go to schoolboys of 16 and convince them that our industry was a good one in which to make their careers. If we succeeded in putting across the message, these young lads were taken on the strength of the firm. They were trained and, for four or five years, they were sent on sandwich courses at technical colleges. They were paid wages, supplied with equipment and given considerable financial support to ensure that they achieved technical qualifications. To that extent, we met the forces. But when boys qualified, they had a moral commitment and nothing more to serve the industry for two years. That was the most that we felt that we could urge upon a young man in civilian life.
The numbers that we recruited were directly geared to forward projects of the numbers that we thought we would want. Very often, those young men would decide that they did not want to continue in the industry which had spent considerable sums training them and which was offering them a career, not until the age of 27 but, if necessary, until they were 65. There was no way in which we could hold them, if they wanted to go. As an industry, we lost the money which had been invested in them, but the country gained. We had to be satisfied with the situation. If we wanted to hold young men, we knew that we would have to adjust our terms and conditions of service.
No problem faced by the Armed Forces in this regard is different from those in large numbers of British industries. In a
690
few years, I am confident that we will look back in horror to the time when young boys could be taken into the forces at 15 and forced to serve 12 years. I believe that we shall still have Armed Forces, with senior N.C.O.s and warrant officers who will still be some of the best trained in the world.
I cannot see why we hang on to an archaic method of recruiting for the Armed Forces which is admitted to be morally wrong. The sooner that we get down to solving the problem, the better.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. James Davidson: I intend to confine my remarks almost entirely to the topic of recruiting. I shall do so briefly, because most of my points have been covered.
At the same time, I take this opportunity of associating the Liberal Party with the remarks which have been made about the conduct of our troops in Northern Ireland, which I am sure everyone has watched with the greatest admiration.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). Having acompanied him last year on an all-party delegation to the United Nations, I formed a high opinion of his views and perspicacity. I do not disagree with anything that he said about Northern Ireland and the recruitment of young men to the forces.
I said that I would confine my remarks to recruiting, and I intend to concentrate on the recruitment of young Service men. We welcome the Minister's statement about the setting up of a Committee to inquire into the problem. I also welcome the Minister's obviously humane attitude to the recruitment of young Service men.
I should like to ask two questions about the Committee before going any further. First, from whom will the Committee hear evidence? Has that been decided? Secondly, when the evidence has been heard and the report has been written. will that report be solely to the Minister or will it be published for hon. Members of this House? These are two important questions which the Minister might like to enlarge upon in his reply.
The figures about recruiting given today are, in a way, reassuring. The increase in September has been a surprise to some

691
of us. But I wonder whether it is a permanent improvement or simply a temporary one, emanating, as was suggested by several hon. Members, from the publicity which the Army has got from its activities in Northern Ireland or from the prospect of higher pay.
It is obvious that to improve recruitment we must do three things. First, we must raise Service pay and improve conditions. Secondly, we must have short engagements. This matter has been dwelt on already. The principle of committing a man, whether he be a youngster or somebody joining at a more mature age, to a period of 12 years' service is enough to put anybody off. Even the most ignorant youngster will realise that he is likely to change his mind in 12 years. I suggest that three years is long enough. Four years is too long. There should be breaks at three years before recommittal to another term of service.
I have great personal feelings in the matter. In 1940, at 13 years of age, I committed myself to a naval career. When seven years later I tried to get out in accept a university place which I had been offered, I was not allowed out. A very kind commanding officer said that he did not think there was the slightest chance that an officer in my category would be allowed out. I say to those other ranks in the Services who feel strongly about the matter that there must be many young officers who feel just as strongly that they would like to have done something else and find they cannot get out. I decided to make the best of it. I spent the rest of my time getting as wide a variety of service as I could, and I do not particularly regret it now. This is a real problem. I remember the bitterness that I felt about it, particularly during the six months or so after I was offered the university place and was unable to accept it.
I turn now to recruiting advertisements. There is a great deal of dishonesty in these advertisements. For the Navy the sea always looks blue. Life in the Navy apparently consists of lying on beaches beside girls in bikinis, playing football in Malta, and generally having a splendid time. The advertisements completely ignore the long and wearisome periods which most sailors at one time or another have to spend stuck in dockyards or in filthy weather swinging round buoys,
692
doing rather unglamorous routine—or even square-bashing, because in each of the Services there are spells doing just that.
I suggest, if it is not already the practice, that when a youngster—though I am against the idea of anyone under 18 years of age committing himself to a Service career—comes to join up, he should be given a child's guide to exactly what his terms of service are and what his contract means. Could he not be given this child's guide to take away and read, so that if he decides to sign on and, six years later, finds that he does not like what he is doing, he can look up and see what he was promised and cannot turn round and say, "I was told that I could opt out at 21", or whatever it may be? A child's guide is what is needed, particularly when there are literally children entering under 18 years of age. I think that they should sign a form declaring that they have read this child's guide so that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.
The Minister made an admission—perhaps not in this debate, but his predecessors have in others—that one reason why there is opposition by the Government, which I can understand. to doing away with recruitment of youngsters under 18, or giving them an option to come out at 18, is that this would be tantamount to admitting that young men and women enter the Services for the wrong reasons. The hon. Gentleman also hinted that this would damage the overall recruiting figures. He gave 12,000 per annum as the number of boy entrants to all three Services. How many of these youngsters drop out in the first six months before reaching the age of 18 years? Has ony investigation been done on the attitude of 18-year olds who decide to stay on in the Services? What makes those youngsters stay on as opposed to those who decide they have chosen the wrong career? Are these the kind of questions which the committee will try to answer?
I have formed a strong conviction over the years which I will put into effect concerning my own children, if possible. In my view, the longer it is possible for any youngster to postpone making a final decision about what he or she will do for a life's career, the better. Obviously

693
it cannot be put off indefinitely, but within reason the longer that decision can be postponed the better, and the more likely he or she will make a wise choice when the time comes.
Brief reference has been made to the wastefulness of training misfits for the Services. It is generally agreed on all sides that those who do not fit into a Service life are better out of it. The six months concession, although most welcome, is still too short, because most Service men are still undergoing fairly basic training in the first six months. I think that it should be extended to a year, because the realisation that they are in it for good or that they have made a mistake comes later than six months from the date that they join.
The cost of training cannot be argued with conviction. If this Government and other Governments have been willing to allocate money for university courses to put doctors and scientists through their training without tying them down at the end of their university courses to any form of Government service, could it not equally be said of money spent on training young Service recruits. If the country at large will benefit, there is no reason why the Services should hold on to them and say, "We cannot afford to let them go because we have spent all this money on training". The country at large will surely benefit if their training is of any value. Obviously retention in the Service of misfits and dissident Service men will be bad for morale as a whole. I believe that the result of making the terms and conditions of service more flexible will, on the whole, be of benefit. We can only hypothesise on this, but my view is that if we make the terms of recruitment more flexible we will get an increase in the numbers of recruits, not a decrease.
We need a little more honesty in our recruitment policy, not misleading advertisements which attract youngsters. only to regret it later. It is perhaps irrelevant, but I remember, when I joined up at 13, that among the influences which made me decide to join the Navy, apart from the war, was the sight of a Service gas mask and tin hat which I then found extremely attractive. There was also the fact that I had recently been to see a film called "Sons of the Sea",where naval cadets, between getting up to exploits on incredibly blue water, tore around the Devon countryside in little
694
red sports cars beside attractive blondes. I thought that this was what life in the Navy was all about. In addition to a little more honesty in recruiting policy, and humanity, which I believe the Minister has, towards those who have joined and then regretted it, the only other ways in which we improve recruiting are by better conditions, by short-term engagements, by paying the men more, and by employing modern attitudes of personnel management and internal communications between those in the Services.
It may not be possible now, but it should be an aim in the future that no man, whether an officer, an N.C.O. or an other rank, who has served a full term of 10 years in one of the Services should be allowed to go into civilian life without a proper qualification. The Services are under a very real obligation to ensure that these men and women have the full opportunity to get qualifications, which will compare favourably with those held by people of their own age, with any of their contemporaries who have spent similar periods of service with a commercial concern or with industry. They should not be at any disadvantage.
7.32 p.m.
Mr. John Lee(Reading): I apologise that I was not present at the beginning of the debate to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say, particularly about boy soldiers. When I decided that I wanted to speak it was because I wanted to assist my hon. Friends in expressing disquiet at the present state of the law on this matter, and at the apparent likelihood that the Government would allow it to continue in its present form.
By now my hon. Friend must be getting a little weary of the subject, and I do not think that he will attempt to avoid replying to it. There are certainly enough of us here to ask the questions again he does. I endorse everything that my hon. friends have said about this. It is all absurd anomaly which ought to be pt t right at the earliest opportunity.
I find a certain wry satisfaction that, stage by stage, the Ministry of Defence is beginning to adopt the Tribune Group's defence policy. We no longer wave flags east of Suez. It took quite a long time to get this across, but the policy has been adopted, three years late. Better

695
late than never. Secondly, we are making some attempt, albeit rather feeble to make the Germans pay proper support costs for the Rhine Army.
Next, with the exception of the Persian Gulf, we have ceased to use military forces to shore up decayed feudal authorites around the world. For that mercy,much thanks. However we have not gone much of the way towards abandoning nuclear weapons. As a nuclear disarmer, I would like to remind my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister talked to parliamentary candidates, myself and himself included, some time before the 1964 General Election,about the so-called British, so-called nuclear, so-called deterrent. Yet we are still manufacturing Polaris submarines and navigating them around the world at enormous cost,to the conviction of no one.
It is incumbent upon those of us who criticise defence policy and who, like myself, have never voted for the Defence Estimates since we entered the House-and I have no intention of so doing as long as we manufacture nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction of the kind produced at Porton-to make clear where we stand when we are not pacifists. With my late and dear friend Emrys Hughes, we knew perfectly well where we stood. He was a pacifist. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House respected him for his point of view. Those of us who are not pacifists are under an obligation to make it clear where we differ and also where we think it necessary that there should be Armed Forces.
I applauded the sending of military forces to Gibraltar recently and have some sympathy with hon. Members opposite who have felt from time to time that a somewhat similar show of force in the Falkland Islands would not be inappropriate. The main point is that if we accept, as most of us on this side of the House do, that it is absurd to maintain forces east of Suez, what is there left for the forces to do?
The internal security situation, as exemplified by Northern Ireland, is one of the remaining legitimate functions for a military force which has abandoned all pretensions to be a nuclear power. For a very short time, and this is only a marginal aspect, so long as there are a few dependent territories, mainly small islands
696
scattered around the world, we cannot avoid the obligation of providing military forces for internal security, on a very small scale. It could hardly be otherwise, because most of the territories are minute. This commitment is rapidly running down, and, I presume, will be coming to an end in the early 1970s.
The remaining reason for having Armed Forces is that we should retain influence in the world, to play our part, defend ourselves or others against potential enemies. I differ on practically everything that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) had to say on this and particularly with his "domino" theory. If we are not concerned with ideology for a moment, if we put on one side the question of who are the enemies and accept for the sake of the argument that there are countries whose existence is inimical to our existence what contribution can a State of this size really hope to make? I do not say none, as some of my pacifist friends might.
I want to refer to some correspondence in The Times this summer under the heading, "Should we have shot Hitler?" Hon. Members will remember that it engaged the columns of The Times for some weeks. There was a general consensus that if we had done so in 1937 or 1938 it is at least arguable that the course of events in the following years would have been very different from and possibly very much better than they were. As a nuclear disarmer, but not a pacifist, I have never been able to understand why it is right to send young men to their deaths in battle, yet apparently not right, according to international law, to kill those responsible for sending them there.
It came out in the correspondence that there are legal objections. It was said that there were specific objections in military law to the selective killing of named persons behind enemy lines. I not know how that squares with the famous but abortive attempt on Rommel's headquaters in 1942, because I thought that the object of that exercise was to kill named specific German general.
To carry it a stage further, does this principle apply political leaders? I was fold by a Army intelligence officer

697
some years ago that during the Second World War there was a tacit truce that we were not to engage in assassination attempts on enemy leaders. I do not know whether it is true, but it is certainly curious that all the attempts on the life of Hitler during the Second World War that we know of were carried out by Germans; and so far as I am aware no attempt was ever made on Winston Churchill's life at all—I was going to say by any outside body.
Why should this principle not apply? Is there anything wrong in the idea of training one's troops for the purposes of the possible assassination of foreign rulers? Have we in a democracy anything to lose by it? In a democracy political leaders of whatever party are easily replaceable. There is machinery of government for replacement. If anything happened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow no doubt it would be a devastating loss, but it would not do irreparable harm. And if anything happened to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition I have a feeling that somehow the Opposition would survive and manage to find somebody who could replace him.
It is, of course, quite another matter in a dictatorship. As the late Lord Attlee said a few days after Stalin's death, "When a dictator dies nobody knows where he stands, or how he stands. or if he is going to stand at all". If that be so, is it not a reasonable inference that in one respect we democracies are in a far better position if we are to maintain our influence and to defend ourselves against potential enemies if we were to train our soldiery for the purposes of political assassination?
There are three categories of persons of whom I am aware to whom such threats would be legitimately applicable. The racialist rulers of Southern Africa, the re-Stalinisers on the other side of the Iron Curtain and, though much less important, various "Banana republic" bosses. However, never mind who, since we are not so much concerned with ideology as with military method.
Is it practicable? There was an interesting example in recent times when something of this kind happened: when Adolf Eichmann was kidnapped and spirited halfway across the world and put to death, 1 think very rightly, by the
698
Israeli authorities. It shows that frontiers are no protection for anybody these days. It shows that a determined band of persons can abduct and kill people from the other side of the world. The concept may seem bizarre and, to some people, conditioned to conventional ideas of warfare, scandalous.
Mr. Cranky Onslow (Woking): The last thing I want to do is to prolong the flights of fancy of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). So that I may bring him back to the subject which the House is supposed to be discussing, may I ask him to consider what penalties under the Army Act he would apply to any member of Her Majesty's Forces who refuses to engage in one of these idiotic ventures?
Mr. Lee: The same penalty as a soldier under military law who refused to carry out any particular assignment. The hon. Member laughs, but I do not see why he should find this suggestion so peculiar. Why should it be right for soldiers to die in battle fighting each other, but not to die for killing political leaders?
There have been several examples where the course of history has been remarkably changed by political assassination. I think of Julius Caesar, Henry IV of France, William the Silent, of Lincoln, and possibly the most remarkable of all, the Archduke Ferdinand. Is it not reasonable to argue-hon. Members opposite do not seem to think so-that if either Hitler or Stalin or both had been killed years before they died the world would have been a better place without them?
I can give an example rather close to my own experience and in my own family. My father-in-law was a member of the English Civil Service and was in Burma on the day when Aung Sang and the entire Burmese Cabinet were gunned down. Fortunately, my father-in-law was not in the same room. I do not defend that particular assassination on grounds of morality, because it may very well be that the particular leaders concerned did not merit it. All I am saying is that it is a practical proposition. It is something that can be done. I do not see why the concept of the idea which seems to have been maintained for a very long time that it is wrong to kill the leaders of nations should prevail.

699
If we were to accept this change of the concept of what an armed force is for it would be right to say that the reduction in our Armed Forces which has been going on belatedly under this Government could be speeded up and carried much further forward than is envisaged even by the most optimistic hon. Members on this side of the House.
If the idea of an armed force is that it should be a comparatively small band of men who are able, not just as "ever-readies", to be called for the purpose of getting across the world to engage in conventional warfare in various parts of the world, but even for the purpose of crossing frontiers to abduct leaders and for their assassination, then I think that we would be able to carry the reduction of our Armed Forces very much further and relieve our economy.
Certainly, it would be a far more convincing threat and far more likely that the various tyrants scattered around the world would take notice of that method than they do of a small nation of our size possessing nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction which everybody knows we would never dare use.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. Victor Goodhew: I do not know whether I should seriously attempt to follow the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) in his thoughts about producing a regiment to be known as the R.R.P.L.A., the Royal Regiment of Peace Loving Assassins, to be sent around the world. Jobbing backwards, I do not know at what stage the world could have known that if either Stalin or Hitler were to be killed life might have been easier but I doubt if he would have received a vote in this House before the war if he had sought to bring about such an act as he described.
I wish to say how depressed I am with the whole of today's debate. We have had little attention on the other side of the House, apart from the Front Bench, to the needs of this country in defence. I am also depressed at the new Minister of Defence for Administration, who has caught very rapidly the inflexibility of his own Secretary of State. He has also caught his right hon. Friend's complacency in the way he dismissed the idea
700
of there ever being a need to defend our shores. I suppose he feels this way now that the Government have cut the Territorial Army, done away with Civil Defence and the Fire Service, thus getting rid of 100,000 willing volunteers who were available to defend these shores. There was also complacency on his part about N.A.T.O.
The Minister mentioned the possibility of perhaps having to remove some forces from B.A.O.R. Only a week or so ago I was in Brussels at the N.A.T.O. Assembly at which the Secretary of State lectured other nations for suggesting that they might wish to withdraw forces from the land in Europe.
What surprised me more was that the Minister did not today even mention the R.A.F. I can understand why, of course, since on matters connected with the R.A.F. he is in great difficulty. One need only look at the position of strike aircraft to appreciate that as each year goes by the extent of the damage still being done by the cancellation of the TSR2 becomes more and more evident.
I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite have read the R.U.S.I. publication "Crisis in Procurement: Case Study of the TSR2". I found it illuminating. It proves that much of what my hon. Friends were saying at the time of the cancellation and afterwards was true. Certainly we could never reconcile the figures which were given by the Secretary of State with those available elsewhere. It is clear from the R.U.S.I. document that the costs were presented in the most unfavourable way and that had they been presented in a different way a different decision could have been reached.
All this is perhaps not strange. for we have learned how adept the Socialist Government are at presenting figures to suit their case, favourable or unfavourable according to the circumstances. But the savage dismemberment of the jigs and tools connected with the TSR2 into small pieces was the most extraordinary action on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The Government were determined to ensure that this aircraft could never be resurrected by a later Conservative Administration. No doubt they were anxious about that at the time because the then Labour Government had a majority of only three or four. Probably

701
they thought that before long a Conservative Government would be in power and would wish to bring the aircraft into service.
I wonder if hon. Gentlemen opposite now have pangs of conscience since the Budget Day announcement of 1965. They should have if we consider what has happened since. Not only did the TSR2 go, but the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft, which was to be the backbone of our Air Force, disappeared. The Socialists then cancelled the F 1 l 1, which we were to have to supplement the AFVG in the short-term. Now we see a multi-role combat aircraft being explored by various European nations as well as ourselves, and the authors of the R.U.S.I. publication refer to it by putting, after the initials "M.R.C.A.", the phrase, "If it ever materialises". Such is the confidence in this aircraft materialising and such a state of affairs is natural following the string of cancellations on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Mr. John Lee: While the hon. Gentleman has given a list of cancelled aircraft, he has not said what his defence policy would be. At what or whom would he aim?
Mr. Goodhew: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument he will have his question answered. I was dealing with some of the matters which have been ignored by the Government, in particular the R.A.F. and its equipment.
A multi-role combat aircraft is recognised as a requirement of the R.A.F. The trouble is that the Service must soldier on with old Canberras and Vulcans until the late 'seventies when, it is hoped, the M.R.C.A. will materialise. Does the hon. Member for Reading consider this to be a satisfactory state of affairs? He may say that we do not need a long-range strike aircraft. If he does we part company immediately. The Government, however, believe that there is such a need, and that is why they are hoping to produce the M.R.C.A.
By the beginning of 1968 the TSR2 could have been in service, even on the Prime Minister's most pessimistic prognostications. Instead, we will not see a replacement until the late 'seventies. Perhaps it is right to say that the Left wing, the members of the Tribune Group,
702
opposite were responsible for the cancellation of the TSR2 in view of the very small majority the Government then had. Even now, with a large majority, we are seeing how they give in to the left-wing on matters like trade union reform. With a majority of three or four the Government were no doubt even more vulnerable to some of their supporters.
The cancellation of the TSR2 was undoubtedly the most irresponsible and disastrous decision to have been taken by the Secretary of State, and that is saying something, because he has many irresponsible and disastrous decisions to his credit, if one should not say to his debit. As I said, the R.A.F. must soldier on with ageing Canberras and Vulcans into the late seventies, and that is assuming that the M.R.C.A. does not go the same way as the AFVG and the F111.
I would like to hear something about the Harrier. We read disturbing reports about this fine aeroplane which many of us have seen operating. How are operational squadrons of this aircraft forming? One was to have been in existence by the end of this year, with a second to be assigned to N.A.T.O. in 1970. Are these dates to be kept or will the whole matter slide?
Is research being conducted into a super Harrier? We are told that this aircraft is not powerful enough to operate from ships. If we had had the P1154, which was also cancelled by hon. Gentlemen opposite, the position would have been different. Is any development taking place along these lines?
I would also like to know about the Phantom squadrons which were supposed to come into being. There was to have been a squadron of naval aircraft for maritime defence by the end of this year. Will this be in existence?
What about the Buccaneers? There was to have been a squadron of these in being for a first maritime strike role. And then we come to the Nimrod, the Belfast and the Hercules. We suddenly read that the vast majority of Hercules aircraft are being withdrawn to have their fuel tanks changed at a cost of hundreds of thousands of £s. This will be a major task, because these fuel tanks are built into the structure.
According to reports, this work is having to be undertaken because the Treasury

703
would not allow an expenditure on an additive costing a few pence per gallon to prevent icing up and the formation of fungus and other forms of corrosion. Did the Secretary of State allow himself to be bullied by the Treasury into saving a few pence only to find himself faced with tremendous expenditure for replacing these fuel tanks?
Pembrokes still stagger around the sky magnificently in R.A.F. Germany as communications aircraft. There have been disturbing reports about some of these aircraft being grounded because their main spars have gone. If so, will they be replaced? Is anything similar coming along?
I must mention the Victor Mark Its which are lying about in my constituency at the Handley Page plant waiting for an order to be confirmed for them to be converted into tankers. The only information I have been able to gain from the Minister of Technology was contained in a letter dated 28th October in which he said:
" We have also given the company certain assurances about their acceptability for carrying out design and development work on the Victor Tanker conversion, if this requirement is confirmed, and we are in touch with them about an initial contract."
I have a strong constituency interest in this matter, in addition to knowing that these tankers are badly needed. I would, therefore, be grateful to hear that this order has been firmly placed, as reported in the Press.
Everything I have described has had its effect on recruitment to the R.A.F. We learned in the White Paper on Defence earlier this year that recruitment was nearly 600 down compared with 1967, from 5,161 to 4,584. The main shortfall, we were told in the White Paper, occurred in aircraft mechanics weapons, aircraft mechanics electrical and electrical mechanics instruments. If we are short of these sort of people we will not keep our aircraft flying. I understand that we have only 1,035 craft apprentices against a requirement of 1,642, with only 137 cadets at universities against a target of 201.
All this is a reflection of the uncertainty caused by the Secretary of State's policies, by this continuing defence review which has gone on year after year.
704
When I read that the right hon. Gentleman is to go to Germany in January to be made a member of the Order of Jokers, I wonder who thinks this is funny. On reading my Concise Oxford Dictionary I see that a joker is also
" a clause unobtrusively inserted in a bill or document and affecting its operation in a way not immediately apparent."
On that basis the right hon. Gentleman is a true joker.
The Services took some time to discover just what was written into his policies, and I dare say they feel very much less happy about the right hon. Gentleman today than they did in 1964. Indeed, where the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has failed to procure mutual disarmament with other countries, the Secretary of State has carried out a massive programme of unilateral disarmament of which Lord Chalfont would haw: been proud.
I propose, now, to say a word about the Simonstown Agreement. I was in South Africa recently, where the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) would like me to have gone with a revolver to shoot its Prime Minister, as he said earlier. I wonder whether the Government fully appreciate the importance of protecting the Cape route, because of vast Russian navies in both the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean, with the majority of our oil and other raw materials from east of Suez having to come round that route? Do they think that that can be left to the South Africans alone? Do they even think that it is sensible today to regard the N.A.T.O. areas stopping at the Tropic of Cancer, as if anything that goes on below that does not affect the N.A.T.O. countries?
Do the Government appreciate the effect of their policy of refusing to supply South Africa with arms for external defence? Do they realise that South Africa is now buying submarines from France, and aircraft from France and Italy, and that the Shackletons which they would gladly have replaced with Nimrods will probably be replaced by some other country's aircraft, with a much shorter range of perhaps 150 miles, thus enabling them to look after their coastal waters, but not giving much needed and vital coverage of the oceans, which is necessary for the protection of that route?

705
Do the Government realise that, having done that, the South African Government have planned their requirements for five to ten years ahead, and that not only have they robbed this country of millions of £s in the last five years, but they have also in advance done it for probably the next five or six years as well, because the South African Government will have to continue where they are buying their goods now? They are people who recognise a friend in need, and do not throw him overboard.
Much has been thrown away by the Government, and I suggest that this has probably been done to pacify the hon. Member for Reading and his group, because they are the ones who keep up the pressure about South Africa. They are the ones who, just as with their desire to assassinate those with whose political views they disagree, are anxious to poke their noses into everybody else's internal politics and domestic policies. They do not therefore accept the United Nations Charter which rules that out, and that is extraordinary from people who pretend to want world order.
I regret that the Government have once more failed completely to put British interests first in this area, to provide the Royal Air Force with the aircraft that it needs, and have withdrawn from areas like the Gulf and the Far East. I suppose that we shall just have to leave it to a Conservative Government to rectify the damage that they have done.
8.4 p.m.
Sir Eric Errington(Aldershot): I do not propose to speak for any considerable time, but this debate has interested me very much because, representing as I have for 15 years the constituency of Aldershot, I have felt that the Services do not necessarily get the interest and the support of the country that they need. It is vital to realise that the Services are essential.
There are occasions when difficult problems arise, but, generally, men in the Services get a first-class education. This applies particularly to the young men in young cadet battalions, and, in addition, they go on with a phased idea of education.
I do not for a moment think that it is easy to meet a situation where discipline has to be maintained, and at the same time deal with some of the problems. I
706
believe that the Ministry is doing the best that it can. I am impressed by the care with which it goes into the various matters that arise, such as ensuring that people receive humane treatment, and that sort of thing.
There is a feeling in the Services, which I am certain is detrimental to recruiting. that they do not know where they will be next. If there is a crisis in a few years' time, everybody will be glad to get people back into the Services, and they will become popular and be treated well. There is also a feeling—and it is most unfortunate—not so much against the Ministry of Defence, but against the Treasury, that they do not always get a fair deal. I remember an officer who was turned out of Ghana at about two hours' notice. He lost his car, his furniture, and everything else. He had a claim of £500 for the loss. It took me three and a half years to deal with it, and I believe that I was truthfully told by the Ministry of Defence that the money could not be paid to this man because of Treasury objections.
There are those who think that the new rates of pay and the X factor are things that will be dodged. There is an idea that if the Ministry of Defence gives something, the Treasury takes it away, and there is, therefore, no confidence that the Services provide a worth-while career. There will always be a limited number of people who go into the Services because they like the communal life, but that is not sufficient under present-day conditions. May we be assured that the Minister of Defence will ensure that what is given with one hand will not be taken away by the Treasury?
There are a number of allowances which are of vital importance to the Services. After all, these men very often have to serve away from their homes and families. They want to know whether they will be fairly treated, and I hope that the Minister will point out that this is vital. This was indicated in the Grigg Report, and I hope that nothing will be done under the new scales that will interfere with that in any way.
In common with others concerned with the Army, I received a letter from the Under-Secretary of State saying that there was to be a change of command. I know that some progress has been made, but I was shattered to find out that this was

707
a matter which was likely to go on till 1974. This sort of thing adds to the uncertainty about careers in regard to the question of pay. It is unsatisfactory to prolong this discussion on command to a period which will last as long as till 1974, and I see no reason why it should be prolonged.
I am very dissatisfied with the way in which the Ministry of Public Building and Works works with the Ministry of Defence. I brought a case to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor which involved the question of the provision of a fence on the balustrade of the higher flats. It was on about the fourth floor. Six months had gone by without this being dealt with, despite requests. I tried to get it dealt with for another six months. In the end, the matter was attended to, but the process does not suggest a desirable line of communication at all levels between the Services and the Ministry of Public Building and Works.
On two occasions—I am not sure what happened in the first case—the hot pipes in barrack blocks were limited to carrying a heat of 140 degrees. That was not adequate and we could not be assured that it would be put right. The final chapter, and the most astonishing one, concerned the excellent building which houses the headquarters depot of the Army Catering Corps. Everything went well there except that the top floor could not be used for the purpose it was wanted for—cooking—because the plastic pipes were inadequate and admitted to be inadequate. The result was a delay which is still going on, as far as I know, and has been going on for six months. I do not know how this sort of thing comes about, but I am not satisfied, from what I have seen and heard, that there is proper liaison between the Army and the Ministry of Public Building and Works. It is an unsatisfactory situation.
Despite all the difficulties and troubles, I think that a wonderful career is still to be had for young men and young women in the Services. Much might be done if it were known that there are so many branches of the Services. Some people, for example, would be interested in engineering and I have been impressed by those interested in catering. Transport is another activity. If it were realised just how many things people can do in
708
the Services, this would go a long way to help recruitment. Of course, there are problems because one often finds more people wanting to do one thing and fewer people wanting to do another, but, nevertheless, there is wonderful opportunity for those who want careers in the Services.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. James Allason (Hemel Hempstead): A heavy burden falls on the shoulders of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, in view of the "support" he has had from his own benches. The speeches of hon. Members opposite have hardly been a tribute to Service life and they certainly went on a long time. However, while he gets no support whatever at the moment from the benches behind him, he also has to undo the harm done by his hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration in his opening speech.
I thought the attack by the Minister of Defence for Administration on the Territorial Army absolutely disgraceful. He said that the quality of the Territorial Army in 1964 was poor. He said that its members were over-aged, inefficient and incapable of being able to enter into battle. That will be very much resented in the Territorial Army and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to undo the unfortunate impression that incorrect statement has induced.
The Territorial Army in 1964 was extremely efficient. It was the present Government who, in 1965, called up the "Ever-readies" for active service in Aden and they acquitted themselves magnificently. That was a sample of what was available in the Territorial Army. The "Ever-readies" were not specially picked. They were those prepared to volunteer for the additional liability. There were plenty of them and one company went out to Aden. It was not the first time that the "Ever-readies" had gone overseas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will retract the slur made by his hon. Friend on the Territorial Army.
The Regular Army has been seriously depleted over these years in pursuance of the Secretary of State's theory that all that matters now is the defence of Europe. For the defence of Europe the Army has to equip itself in the most expensive way possible, and all to fight

709
a war which, in fact, will never be fought. I wish that the Secretary of State could take it in that the Army has a peacetime as well as a wartime role. It is ridiculous to try to work out exactly what its military commitments will be and to lay down that there will be exactly the right size of forces for all the commitments likely to arise.
The Secretary of State thought that by reducing commitments we could reduce the size of the forces commensurately. It cannot be done, because commitments may be unexpected and to reduce commitments by half does not mean that the forces may be halved with any certainty of meeting the remaining commitments.
But a whole series of defence White Papers advanced that proposition. We used to have them regularly every six months. This afternoon the Minister of Defence for Administration gave two of the three reasons for the improvement in the September recruiting figures. One of his reasons was that the events in Ulster had cropped up. I hardly think that they were an inducement to recruiting, for our forces there are fulfilling a most unpleasant task. His second reason was the news of a possible improvement in pay; that is certainly a reason.
But surely the big attraction of the forces is the third reason, which is that there has not been a further review of defence, which, to judge by past experience, should have been due in the second half of this year. The forces are thoroughly fed up with being disrupted as they have been by the Labour Government. The events in Ulster have cropped up to prove the Secretary of State wrong. In Ulster, he has been taken short. He cannot find the necessary infantry battalions and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said, the Secretary of State has had to have botched-up units there, part R.A.F. and part Army. This indicates the mess which the turnover of infantry battalions has reached.
I remember when the Army was getting a little over-stretched, to use the now fashionable word, in the days when the Conservatives were in office. One of the great defence experts on the Labour benches criticised the use of a Gunner regiment for internal security in Cyprus.
710
Apparently, he was not aware that at that time the Gunners were trained in an internal security role. Are they still trained in that role and are they being used to relieve infantry?
Mr. Richard indicated assent.
Mr. Allason: 1 am glad to see that the Minister nods. That lesson has been learned.
While the R.A.M.C. is in Ulster, it happily does not have much of a job to do and its personnel are being used in civilian hospitals there. However, for some peculiar administrative reason, these hospitals cannot serve the troops with a midday meal without charging them for it, and the men have to pay out of their own pockets. This is nonsense. The civilian hospitals arc benefiting from the arrangement, but apparently are forced to charge while the Army, by red tape, is unable to meet the bill. I should like the Minister to look into that.
Mr. Richard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that R.A.M.C. personnel who are working voluntarily, so to speak, in civilian hospitals, are being charged for meals in the very hospitals in which they are working?
Mr. Allason: Yes.
Mr. Richard: Thank you very much.
Mr. Allason: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) has made the serious charge that our troops in Ulster have been incited to desert. I hope that careful investigation of this charge has already occurred. This sort of thing happened with the C.N.D., which, unfortunately, is no longer represented in the Chamber, some years ago. A serious view is taken of incitement to desert and if it is occurring in Ulster I hope that the Army authorities will not hold back from pursuing the matter to the utmost.
I should be grateful if we could be told a little about what is happening in Germany because of revaluation. When Britain devalued, there were serious consequences for B.A.O.R. and a delay in finding a short-term solution to the problem. Eventually, the overseas allowances were revised, but that took a long time. Exactly the same sort of thing must have

711
happened in Germany because of the revaluation during the Recess. It must entail further serious problems for troops and civilians in Germany and I hope that those problems will be dealt with more humanely than on the last occasion.
I conclude with a tribute to the excellent work of the Army as exemplified by our forces in Ulster. It shows that they can rise above any difficulties, even the Government Front Bench.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. A. W. Wiggin: I should like to begin with a word of gratitude to the substantial number of officers, men and even civil servants who helped to organise the extremely well-run tour of the Far East on which I and several other hon. Members went. As a new boy, I found this visit to defence establishments extremely useful, but I am well aware that such a visit causes disruption of the daily routine, and I should like to record my gratitude.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) said about young married people. Many of the problems of morale in the Services stem from the fact that marriages are occurring at younger and younger ages. Like all good husbands, many Service men do not like leaving their wives and homes, a feeling which the wives reciprocate. This is at the root of many of the grumbles—I put it no higher—that 1 have heard all round the world.
A wife wants, and her Service man husband wants her to have, security. He wants to know that when he is abroad on active service, or even in peacetime conditions, his wife and family will be well established among friends and that if they have troubles or family problems there will be someone to look after them, and that they will not be immediately posted to the other end of the country or to some other locality. I hope that this consideration will be given substantial priority in the thinking about Service accommodation in the immediate future.
From meeting some of the personnel at stations such as Gan, who are doing a year's unaccompanied tour, I believe that if home conditions can be made
712
satisfactory most Service men will be prepared to accept short, unaccompanied tours. When they join the Services, they do not think that it will all be a bed of roses—they are not joining the Boy Scouts. While recognising that in peacetime conditions they have every right to be treated as people in industry or commerce would be treated, I think that the rough living side can be overemphasised.
Wherever we went we discussed the new pay scales. These pay arrangements will be acceptable, provided every man is better off. Every man who is not better off will not accept them. The question of accommodation and its value was highlighted by two visits. The first was to H.M.S. "Duncan", admittedly an old ship nearing the end of its useful service. It is one which has been fitted with electronic black boxes over the years. Each time this happens 8 to 10 men are needed to run it. The black box is placed in sleeping accommodation and soon there is totally inadequate accommodation on such a vessel.
I went to R.A.F. Valley, a modern, up-to-date aerodrome equipped with a large officers' mess, suitable for all the training staff. I was asked: what happens if the accommodation rate for the officers' mess is higher than in the village? Will the Ministry of Defence put the mess up for sale? Will they accept the morale problems that a lot of young officers living out will create? I hope that the administration of this complicated scheme will be considered seriously. There are many pitfalls, not only for the Ministry of Defence, but for the numerous officers and N.C.O.s who will have to administer it.
I do not want to be drawn into a debate about Vietnam, but clearly the morale of our Services is vitally important. The keen young officers and N.C.O.s today are truly professional. They are fully trained and they want to go and see for themselves the conduct of modern warfare. I am surprised to learn that they have been forbidden to go to Vietnam, even as volunteers. I would have thought that even a small quantity of volunteer advisers, perhaps under 100, would not only have been of great assistance to our allies from a morale point of view, but would have been thoroughly welcomed by all three armed services as an opportunity to see the most modern warfare since Korea.

713
It is almost impossible to find a British Service man whose morale is low, but it was the impression of those of us who were on the tour that the future is viewed somewhat gloomily by substantial number of potential young leaders.
I agree with all that has been said about the stretching of our forces and the obvious fact that we have at last got down almost to the bare minimum. I was glad that the Minister in his statement brought up this question of the Territorial Army. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason). I found those remarks most hurtful. I was a member of that Territorial Army and I was not in any way ashamed of what i was doing. I felt that I had a purpose. My equipment was old, but had I been called upon I believe my training would have been adequate to meet the emergencies I might have been likely to face. I was extremely disturbed to hear the Minister's reply to the intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the question of our reserve forces in relation to those in the rest of N.A.T.O.
We have turned to the Territorial Army on two occasions in the last half century and I would have thought that to run our reserves down to the appallingly low level at which they now stand was stupidity in the extreme. There is a certain degree of knocking going among hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite about our reserve forces. I quote from the speech made at the R.U.S.I. on 22nd October by the Secretary of State. I understand that this was released to the Press. The right hon. Gentleman said:
" I hope I do not need to remind an audience like this that in an internal security operation of this nature, there is no substitute for a disciplined professional force. The attempt to use part-time reserves in this role in some recent incidents in the United States has surely taught us this".
It might be imagined that this was an innocent statement, but as a British soldier I do not exactly appreciate being compared with my counterparts across the water, any more than I think most British people would feel happy if they were defended by American policemen. They have a different way of conduct of their affairs.
I spent a considerable amount of time as an officer in TAVR III learning the
714
art of riot control in fulfilment of my orders to assist the civil Dower. We worked hard on that. We obtained assistance from the police, Regular soldiers, film, booklets and we ended up with a week's practical training. We had officers who went on Regular Army courses to learn the use of aids to controlling riots. We had no equipment, but then the Regular Army had no equipment for riot control, and I believe that it still does not. At the end of that training I could have taken my men out and been of great assistance to the civil police in the event of any form of unrest.
I hope that the Minister will remember that most of the yeomanry regiments were used to a large degree in the 19th century to help with this task. Any discouragement is deeply felt. I sincerely hope that the Government will feel inclined to encourage it rather than discourage it by these somewhat snide remarks. By assisting the civilian police in emergencies and disasters the T.A. has a role, which it has not been called upon to perform. Many volunteers, including some from my own drill hall, although it was not my unit, went to help at Aberfan, and I believe that the police there welcomed the arrival of a uniformed, disciplined body of men.
With the disappearance of the civil defence force, or should I say the freezing of it, the TAVR has a function which is increasingly required. The present TAVR II is something like 14,000 men short of the establishment laid down by the Government—a shortfall of nearly 25 per cent. I find it amazing the number of people who say to me, "I did not know that the T.A. still existed." Yet the Government have seen fit to spend little or no money on advertising or promoting the existing TAVR II set-up. The Minister has confessed that half the men came from TAVR III and, by gosh, what good chaps those were. They stuck through the dark days of no pay when they motored considerable distances at their own expense, trained at nights and at weekends, entirely out of a feeling of duty and adventure. That is the 50 per cent. of TAVR II. I hope the Minister will consider how recruiting to these forces will be carried out in future. With the absorption of this large number there will be a time, if we are not careful, when we will be in difficulties.

715
I pay tribute to the permanent T.A. staff officers on consolidated rates of pay. These men and women have worked devotedly for long hours, and often well outside their duty hours, to assist particularly in the TAVR III days, to keep the ship afloat. They are underpaid; they have no career structure. After six years they receive a small increase in salary. There is no hope of promotion. The Government have now seen fit to make them no longer eligible for the award of the Territorial Decoration. Some of them joined in the knowledge that possibly at the end of a substantial number of years' service this small reward might come to them.
I refer finally to the remnants of the old Territorial Army—the cadres. have not had a great deal of personal experience of their operations, but it is clear that the task which they have been set, which is a worthy one, cannot adequately be done by three officers and five N.C.O.s. The cadres are extremely short of establishment and of paid time for training and yet they are the root on which perhaps a new tree might be allowed to grow. The Government have absolutely no cause to be complacent about the Territorial Army or the TAVR and these volunteers must be given every possible encouragement as a matter of great national urgency for the security of this country.
8.41 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South): It is some years since I ventured to take part in a debate on the Services. I have always had such unbounded confidence in the skill, wisdom, perspicacity and knowledge of my hon. Friends who interest themselves in these matters that I have been content to leave it to them. But I thought that it would be a pity it, on the occasion of the first debate that we have had on the Army since the troubles in Ulster, someone from Ulster did not take the opportunity of saying a brief "Thank you". That is really a!! that I wish to do.
The role which the Army has had to play in Ulster is one of the nastiest which soldiers are called upon to play. Support of the civil power is always the role which soldiers dislike most. The services which the Army has rendered to us in Ulster are incalculable, and it would be very wrong if this occasion passed without
716
my saying on behalf of my colleagues from Ulster how deeply we all appreciate what the forces have done. I hope that the Minister will convey our thanks to General Freeland and his officers and men.
I am sorry that we have not heard a word of thanks from hon. Members opposite—for example, from the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) or the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), whose constituents owe the same debt to the Army as do the people whom I represent.
I should like to take up the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) made about the R.A.M.C. officers serving in our hospitals. I was astonished to hear what he said and I hope that the Minister will look into it. If I can use my good offices in any way, I shall be happy to do so, because I should not like to feel that these people who are serving our community were out of pocket in so doing.
One of the most disturbing things is that the conditions in which the soldiers find themselves in Ulster are so unusually difficult because of the unexpected nature of the operation and the fact that for a number of years Army establishments over there have been running down, with barracks being closed, and so on.
Perhaps one is being wise after the event, but it has been a short-sighted policy as we see in the light of experience. I hope that the lesson will be learned and that not only will temporary accommodation be provided to deal with this emergency, but when the final decision is made as to the size of the garrison to be kept there, adequate provision will be made. Obviously, it has to be at least twice the garrison which existed before the troubles, probably two brigades. We are not dealing only with the present emergency.
Anything which the authorities in Northern Ireland or I can do to help the Minister will be done. I am sure that this goes for the Northern Ireland Government and for the local authorities there. We are very conscious of the debt we owe to the services and therefore we wish to help.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) queried some

717
of the strategic concepts. I have my own criticism of some of the methods by which the emergency was handled. Like my hon. Friend, I doubt the wisdom of manning barricades' on the basis of penny packets. From now on there might be better methods of handling that matter, but this is not the occasion to deploy that kind of argument. When the troops are engaged in an operation it would be a mistake to criticise, but there may come a time when we shall have to examine the whole operation to see if we can learn lessons from it.
Once again, I say to the Minister that we are very proud of the way in which our forces have behaved, and thankful for the help they have given to us in the difficulties we have gone through.
8.48 p.m.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester): I take the opportunity of welcoming the Under-Secretary and the Minister of Defence for the Army, with whom I have not had the opportunity of crossing swords up to now. I assure them that we on these benches very much welcome the news of the improvement in recruiting figures for September which were given at the beginning of this debate. But, as on its economic policy, the Government must not try to pretend that one swallow makes a summer. Almost all the problems discussed today arise principally from the recruiting figures which have resulted in a very serious backlog in Service manpower.
I do not want to add by a jot or tittle to those difficulties, because, as I have often said in this Chamber, I believe there is still an excellent career in the Services for a young man. Among the causes of poor recruiting is the Government's emphasis on cuts and reductions. Ministers boast of what savings they have achieved and there is the immense cynicism of the Government. They argued for the first three years of this Government's life about the tremendous importance of a British position east of Suez and then suddenly cut it out by a stroke of the pen. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Australia Club on 13th July, 1966, said this:
" We recognise that it is in the Far East and Southern Asia that the greatest danger to peace may lie in the next decade, and that some of our partners in the Commonwealth, including Australia, may be directly threatened. We reaffirm our belief that it is right that
718
Britain should continue to maintain a military presence in this area."
Within months the Secretary of State was over in Australia saying the same thing, but then he came back here and said that we would clear out, and the Government said that no threat existed outside the arbitrary line drawn on the map to delineate the N.A.T.O. area.
There is also cynicism in the Government's attitude about over-stretch, a difficult concept to explain, but anyone who has been in the Services knows only too well what over-stretch there has been in recent years. Figures were given in the 1966 Defence Review which were the kernel of the argument about the state of the forces at that time. Recently, however, the Secretary of State refused to give to the House the figures of over-stretch. When it suited the Government's purpose to give the figures they were given in full detail, but now it is declared to be against the national interest for them to be published.
Of course, the Government must use in Ulster what troops they can rake together. Will the Minister say whether the Royal Horse Artillery are to retrain as infantry and put their guns into deep storage? It is not the first time in history that gunners have been used in the infantry role, and they are splendid, versatile people, but is this report true?
The 1969 Defence White Paper, paragraph 1, in the context of overstretch, says this:
" The re-orientation of our defence policy is now completed, and the Armed Forces can look forward to a period of stability and progress."
Yet we are told that six more infantry battalions are to be reduced by 1970, and that the Green Jackets based on Winchester are to be reduced to two battalions in 1972. This does not sound like a period of stability or progress.
It is often said that defence policy is the servant of foreign policy, and this must be so, but foreign policy which alienates, for example, South Africa because of the ideological obsession of the benches opposite is contrary to the national interest. The strategic importance of the Cape route has been mentioned by several hon. Members, and any Service officer or other rank can understand this basic strategic fact. Yet the Minister declares his personal boycott

719
of South African goods while, simultaneously, British sailors from Her Majesty's ships are enjoying the hospitality of South Africans in Simonstown. This was very badly received by South African public opinion.
Mr. Hattersley: That is not much concern to me.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It should be.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: My hon. Friend says that it should be, and so it should if the Minister is paying attention to what ought to be the consideration of his Ministry, that is to say, the strategic importance of the Cape route, and not luxuriating in his own obsessions.
Pay is the one factor affecting recruitment which the Ministry has completely under its control. There are many imponderables about recruitment, and many things which are difficult to quantify. Pensions are equally important, and many of the older N.C.O.s feel that pensions are not receiving sufficient attention, and are not being dealt with as urgently as they should. Yet the Secretary of State has turned over this vital aspect of control over the Armed Forces to the Prices and Incomes Board, which produced a long report in June.
We now see virtually a free-for-all in pay rises in civilian life. Rises of 12, even 17 per cent., have been granted in recent weeks. Yet—surprise, surprise!—the Board's Report on the increase due to Service men recommends exactly 31 per cent. Pay is not everything, as I fully understand and as I have made clear in many previous debates. There are elements of job satisfaction and the idealism which young men feel when in the Services, and so on. Nevertheless, pay is a very important factor.
If pay for special duties in Ulster is to be granted—and the Secretary of State has made a lot of fuss about duty-free cigarettes, and so forth—then 3s. 6d. a day for a private soldier is a derisory sum. It is less than the price of a packet of cigarettes.
The rest of the P.I.B. Report is mostly concerned with what has become known as the "military salary concept"—a classic example of the bureaucratic language which occurs in the 115-odd pages of this immense tome.
720
What is the Service man to think of it all? It is hardly surprising if he is sceptical and cautious about it. Instead of giving pay plus allowances, the Government are to give salary plus negative allowances. They will be difficult to calculate. The complications will be enormous.
How was this "military salary" evolved by the Board? It made an infinitely detailed comparison with civilian life—job evaluation. On page 106, there is fantastically detailed research as to how job evaluation should be done. Then the Board decided what everyone else knew already—that there is no valid comparison with civilian life. That should have been obvious to it from the start. It then added a completely arbitrary but well named X factor. It might have saved all this work and at once given a good, whacking increase of pay to the Services with full publicity. This would not, in addition, have involved the delay for a year while the mountain of a Board produced this mouse. In the last resort, the only proper level of pay for the Services is that which will produce recruits in the necessary numbers. There is no other satisfactory criterion.
As many hon. Members have said, the country is very properly alarmed about the state of our defences. This is also one of the factors which worries people abroad about England when they wonder what sort of state it has got into. This is especially the case in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, and also in the United States, where they feel that we are not bearing our proper share in the alliance of the free world. The Conservatives want to see that the Government are also concerned and that they are prepared to do something effective about it.
8.59 p.m.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Most hon. Members will agree that this has been an interesting and worthwhile debate. First, I want to congratulate the Minister of Defence for Administration and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army on their appearance in their first defence debate. I point out to the Under-Secretary of State, who was educated in Llanelli and brought up, therefore, when lighter and younger, in rugger conditions, that it helps one's success in rugby, as was so

721
evident last night when Newport played the Springboks, to have solid support from behind. He has been packing 1—0—0, which is a very unusual formula. If he does not get the ball often, he must not be surprised, because a little support from behind him would be more likely to achieve success.
I cannot help feeling that there is one person missing from the debate, and we are all very sorry about it. During the 20 years that I have been taking part in these defence debates, one man has sat in the corner seat just below the Gangway opposite with infinite patience, a wry sense of humour and great tolerance. I refer. of course, to the late Emrys Hughes. It is sad that he is not with us. Perhaps he is in spirit.
The main theme of the debate has been the anxiety in Ulster and the manner in which this operation has highlighted the thinness of our forces, the need to increase our strengths and, above all, the need for increased recruiting. Many hon. Members on these benches and a few hon. Members opposite have stressed this point.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, the Minister of Defence is not here. On 22nd October he made what in America is called a keynote speech to the Royal United Service Institute which was a fund of misinformation. I want to take this opportunity to contradict some of the points made in that speech. However, because I am attacking a speech made there, I would not like it to be thought that it is anything other than an admirable institution. It is right that we should have a forum for the discussion of defence problems, and the revival of the R.U.S.I. in this form is a wholly healthy arrangement.
In that speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that when the present Government took office in October, 1964, they found that we planned to spend 7 per cent. of the gross national product on defence for the indefinite future. I am afraid that that was wrong. He did not take over his Ministry until November, 1964. In the year 1964–65, which was virtually over, we spent 6·72 per cent. of the G.N.P. on defence. In the current year, according to the Estimates, we are likely to spend 6·31 per cent., which takes
722
account of items on the Defence Vote and other defence items on other Votes. Even that reduction from 6·72 to 6·31 per cent. is not a true reflection which is why we think that we are getting singularly bad value for money. Forces have been cut, and commitments have been cut, yet we are still spending nearly the same proportion of the gross national product. Since the 6·31 per cent. was announced, we have had a £20 million increase in salaries, which must be added to the Estimates.
It is very difficult for anyone on this side of the House to discover exactly what other commitments we have. We know that we shall have to pay back the £559 million spent in dollars on Phantom and Hercules aircraft at £40 million a year, reducing to £36 million in the latter part of the 1970s. That is unlikely to fall in the lap of the present Government. I have no doubt that it will fall in the lap of a successor Government under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath).
There is also, what I might call a slight fiddle in the manner in which the German loan was negotiated. We have £52 million of German Government loan at a special interest rate of 31 per cent. We have to start paying it back in [0 years. Again, the Government have put off until tomorrow what they cannot afford to put in the Estimates today because of Left wing criticism. Why do not they "come clean"?
I am not surprised that in Germany the Minister of Defence has been awarded the Order of the Joker as a very funny man. When I read the jokes, I did not think that they were all that funny, but perhaps the German sense of humour is different from our own. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman is funny peculiar rather than funny ha-ha. The right hon. Gentleman's figures certainly bemuse us. and I hope that we can clear our minds and get down to the true facts. It may be that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to refute some of them.
Most of the debate, understandably, has concentrated on Europe. There is no difference of opinion here. We recognise that Europe is the front door to this country and that the front door must be kept barred and properly guarded. But

723
the Government's present policy recognises that they have defence responsibilities to Hong Kong, Berlin, Cyprus, perhaps to Malta, to Gibraltar and to our residual colonial territories. They have not yet renegotiated the Malaysian defence treaty, so there is another obligation. Also, they have solemnly told us that they have and will retain a general capability to help our friends in the Far East. So, although Europe may take overriding priority, there are other commitments which must not be altogether neglected.
I had a passage of arms with the Minister of State. Fortunately, I saw my former private secretary in the Box this evening, so I warned him of the quotations I was likely to use in the hope that the Under-Secretary would have an opportunity of getting a correct brief in time to reply. The Minister of Defence in his R.U.S.I. speech, and also during Questions on 15th October, categorically stated:
" When I came into office in 1964 I found that the level of manning in units in B.A.O.R. under the previous Government was 3,000 lower than it is today…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 387.]
We put down a Question—it may be that the answer is inaccurate; there must be the explanation—asking how many people are
" now stationed in Germany."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1969; Vol 788, c. 174.]
It did not ask how many people are under German command or under B.A.O.R. command. After a delay and several letters saying that the Minister was considering it most carefully, I got an answer which showed that we had nearly 3,000 more in 1969, but he said:
" These figures include personnel at the advance base in Belgium "—
I did not ask about Belgium, but about Germany—
" and 6 Brigade and 36 Heavy Air Defence Regiment who were redeployed from Germany to the United Kingdom in 1968 but who are still under operational command of B.A.O.R. The latter number 4,272 personnel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th October, 1969; Vol. 788, c. 175.]
How can the Minister claim that these are in Germany? They are not. They are in this country. It seems that this is an inaccurate reply. If so, perhaps the Minister will apologise as he did about his statement that none of 3 Division
724
had been milked and then had to correct it. He said that it had not been touched and later he said that of the nine battalions five had been redeployed to Northern Ireland. If this is another misanswer we will accept an apology tonight. It looks as though the numbers physically in Germany now are less than in 1964.
I turn now to the "general capability" which the Government have assured us will be maintained east of Suez. Here, I acknowledge and draw to the Minister's attention that in the 1968 mid-season White Paper. Under this Government we usually have two. One comes about the end of January or the beginning of February and there is a correction in mid-season when perhaps recruiting is going down, or in the interests of stability or overstretch, or the economy or something. We were told in Cmnd. 3701, presented in July, 1968, pages 20–21:
" This formal commitment "—
to N.A.T.O.—
" is unlikely to prevent our sending appropriate forces overseas unless conditions in Western Europe make such deployment obviously undesirable."
As my right hon. Friend said in opening the debate, it will be more difficult to convince N.A.T.O. now that we have not got such large commitments overseas that we need to rob our N.A.T.O. forces to meet these needs.
The statement went on:
" While it would conflict with Britain's new political priorities to deploy more than a relatively small part of her total strength outside Europe we could, if, in our judgment the situation so demanded, still provide a considerable force of all three Services."
So it is clearly in the Government's planning that they should be able to take forces away and redeploy them, as we ourselves did on certain occasions, but only reluctantly.
In opening the debate the hon. Gentleman quipped and he is entitled to do it —that people might be further overstretched if we continued our deployment east of Suez. Let us try to get down to the brass tacks of this. We do not disagree about Hong Kong. The Government plan to maintain 7 major units there. We feel that if presence, perhaps in Singapore, was based there, we might be able to save one unit. There is no major difference about the defence of Hong Kong.

725
In Appendix G of their White Paper the Government say that there are 42,550 Service personnel in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Brunei and Gan. In any concept that we have, we do not visualise anything like that number being deployed there. Perhaps one-third of that number would be an adequate force, and naturally a maritime force.
It may be necessary to supplement the Australian supersonic squadrons with one of our own supersonic squadrons, because these sophisticated aircraft cannot be flown or operated to the best efficiency by Malaysian or Singapore personnel. We cannot visualise a major force of the British Army being there. We visualise a maritime force, a sophisticated force which cannot be supplied from Malaysia or Singapore.
We would like to know what is happening about the Kuala Lumpur power talks. We have not had a report on them, and there have been recent discussions. Is progress being made? I ask that because within those talks comes the renegotiation of the Malaysian treaty.
We believe that we could make a useful contribution, with our Australian and New Zealand allies, alongside Malaysia and Singapore, but nothing that we say in this House should deter those last two countries from going ahead as fast as they can with their own national forces. But they cannot, with the best will in the world, supply the sophisticated weapons, or the highly-trained manpower that is necessary in as short a time as the Government have given them before we are due to leave. According to Appendix H the Government are spending £72 million across the exchanges in the Far Fast. We believe that about one-third of that figure might be our obligation under our policy.
I turn, now, to overstretch, because so many of my hon. Friends have mentioned this, and this is something about which the Minister felt strongly. We have never felt quite so strongly about this. I have always felt that the Almighty designed a human being to carry a considerable overload. It is amazing what one can do for a short time and with dedication. People do not die from overwork, but they sometimes rust away from underwork, and if I had a choice between the two—and this must go for every
726
Member—I would much rather be overworked than bored. People who retire often die only too soon after unless they do a worthwhile job. We do not believe that overstretch was a considerable problem when we handed over defence responsibility to the Government.
We believe that the main task now is to stop the run-down of our forces so that we can meet the sort of emergency that has arisen in Ulster. We therefore ask the Government, in particular because we hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that our economy is now so much stronger, that we are now not in deficit, that we will earn a surplus of £500 million this year, and that if we do this for another six years we shall be able to repay the £3,000 million overseas debt which we have incurred, to halt the run-down.
It has been clearly shown that we have had to scrape the barrel to get the extra troops for Ulster. Why, therefore, should we go ahead next year with the disbandment of another six battalions? Is not this most unwise in the light of all recent experience, and in the light of what the Government say is the strength of the economic position?
I deal, next, with recruiting. The Minister confessed that he was sorry that the August figures had taken a little time to arrive here. The September figures arrived 24 hours after the August figure. The August figures, which were very bad and had a shocking Press this morning, were released on 12th November. The September figures were released on 13th November—on this occasion coinciding, not with a party conference, but with a defence debate in this House. I cannot help thinking—I hope that cynicism is not coming into politics—that in this Government bad news travels slowly, but good news travels extremely fast. I hope that we shall now get back to a rhythm of having recruiting figures up to date.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, in winding up, will mention the officer recruiting, since the figures do not mention them. When one visits Service establishments and meets young officers, one finds a great uncertainty about the future. Is it worth while these young men staying in? If this is reflected in the recruiting figures—and I fear that it may be—this is bad for the future of our Services. I hope that the hon Gentleman will take the opportunity

727
of saying how officer recruiting is progressing.
I thought that the Minister, in the R.U.S.I. speech, was complacent—when he said "the latest recruiting figures are encouraging". This was on 22nd of October. One suspects that he knew by then the September figures, although we did not get even the August ones until three weeks later. I urge the Government Front Bench not to be complacent about recruiting because the manpower of our Services is the one place where there is no room for complacency. The Government would have all the support that we can give from these benches in any efforts they make in alleviating the present sad and alarming deficit.
Could we be told how the extra £821 million which was announced today for the increase through the military salary and the X factor will be met? Do the Government acknowledge that this is over and above the £2,000 million at 1964 prices to which the Defence Estimates have been pegged? If that is so, we will support it. But, if it is not, and must come off the £2,000 million ceiling, only two things can happen. Either the numbers in defence forces will have to be cut or there will have to be savings in equipment or research and development. May we be told how room will be found to provide the extra £821 million within the present Defence Budget ceiling?
It would be wrong in any defence debate not to mention the Royal Air Force. I say that because if we have not mentioned the Royal Navy it is not an oversight, for we hope soon to have a short debate on that Service. I mention the Royal Air Force because no Service has suffered more from changes in economic policy and changes in planned equipment. In the R.U.S.I. speech, which probably earned the Secretary of State the prize in Germany as being a really funny man, we are told "we are now getting much better value for money on defence equipment".
I could not help reflecting upon the many cancellations. Admittedly, the first three promising projects were started by the Conservative Government, but the cancellation costs are serious. In the case of TSR2 the cancellation costs were £178 million, for the P1154 £21 million, and
728
one notes that when the project was stopped the contractors were ordered to saw up all the jigs and tools and solemnly destroy all the designs. This was done, and so we shall not have an opportunity to go back and make use of the supersonic version of the 1127 which, in its developed form, has become the Harrier.
The cancellation charges on the 681 amounted to £4 million, for the F111 £13·5 million in dollars, the Anglo-French VG EN million, the Chinook £11 million. That is a total of £220 million in cancellation charges. Yet the Minister solemnly says to an informed audience at the R.U.S.I. that we are getting better value for money spent on defence. That is an astonishing statement and stands facts on their heads.
I should like to know whether withdrawal of the French from the WG13 project means that we shall be going ahead with it. We believe that this is a worth-while project, but there are rumours that it is escalating a little in cost. We hope that this is not so and that we shall have some assurance on this matter.
We notice that the strength of R.A.F. element in N.A.T.O. has been cut from 8,648 in 1964 to 6,488 today. That is a 25 per cent. cut. The number of Air Force personnel normally reflects the amount of Service equipment they are administering and operating. On the whole, today's aircraft are more complicated and need more support than the aircraft of 1964. I wonder whether we are not risking the Air Force support for the Army in this vital and high priority theatre. As I understand, the Canberras are not to be replaced one for one by the Phantoms, and the Phantoms are limited in numbers. I wonder whether there will be a horrid gap before the MRCA aircraft comes into operational service—if it goes ahead.
Should we not press on with the Harrier? It has very considerable capability, but money will have to be spent to increase its engine capacity. We would appreciate it if we could be told that there is a real sense of urgency in getting on with this aircraft. Perhaps we can be told whether money is to be spent on the marinised version. I am sorry. I know that it is a bastard word; it means the marine version—so that it can operate from a flight deck.

729
Many of my hon. Friends have mentioned the vulnerability to the whole Western world of the Cape route. We have 62 per cent. of our oil coming from the Gulf, all of it coming round the Cape route. Western Europe is almost equally dependent on oil from Arab Srates and nearly all that oil has to come round the Cape route. Is the Minister confident that the proposal for a union of Arab Emirates is going ahead and that we are likely to have a Federal army before we pull out?
Mr. John Lee: Not again.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman says that they are not. This is our opinion, too.
Mr. John Lee: I said, "Not again". Not another federation.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: It is the Government's idea, not ours. When they said that they would pull out—it is costing 1:12 million and we are deeply dependent upon the oil—the defence there would rely on a new Federation of the nine States in that part of the world, with a Federal army. We have grave doubts as to whether this is going ahead. If it is not going ahead what will happen to the Trucial and Oman Scouts? This is a magnificently trained body, eminently suitable for serving in that part of the world and the Government should give some attention to this.
What will happen in future now that some of our most valuable desert training areas may no longer be available in Libya to our forces? Perhaps the Government ought to take an option on possible training in the Sharjah area which is ideal for this. Since we must have somewhere where we can test our forces and equipment under desert conditions, if Libya is closed to us then Sharjah would appear to be a good alternative.
1 apologise to my hon. Friends for not having dealt with all the points raised. I will summarise the main ones as follows. Ulster has highlighted the paucity of our numbers, particularly of our infantry. As I came into the debate I was given a hand-out from Eastern Command at Colchester which says:
"On 14th November the 1st R.H.A. will go to Northern Ireland for four months to relieve the 3rd Light Infantry in Belfast. For
730
its new task it has had to place its 105 mm. guns into heavy care and preservation and re-train as infantry … This is the first time it has ever been committed in an infantry capacity."
This only underlines what my right hon. Friend said and what so many others have said, that we are short of infantry. We are strained and we should ask the Government to consider whether this is not the moment to halt the rundown so that we can meet our obligations and commitments.
9.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Ivor Richard): This is the sort of debate to which it is difficult for any Minister to reply. One sits and listens to speeches made by hon. Members on both sides, and each hon. Member has asked at least two questions of specific, and in some cases of almost personal, interest. I am in a position to reply to some, while in respect of others I undertake to look into them and write to the hon. Members concerned.
First, however, I will deal with several specific matters that have been raised in a number of speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) spoke of the British Military Hospital at Dhekelia in Cyprus. From our point of view, the hospital is to some extent under-utilised. We already have under consideration the possibility of it providing some help for the local population. There are certain problems about the financing and staffing of a joint venture, which would be a complicated business, but a considerable amount of goodwill exists on both sides and it is possible—we are hopeful and would welcome this—that some beneficial agreement could be reached, to the advantage of the local population if it is possible to arrive at such an agreement.
I was asked about the Third Division, the ACE Mobile Force and if I would indicate the commitment to Northern Ireland. None of the troops connected with the ACE Mobile Force have been committed to that area. It is true that at present five battalions of the Third Division are temporarily serving:n Northern Ireland, but none of these is earmarked for ACE Mobile Force. All of them remain part of the general commitment to N.A.T.O., a matter to which I will come later, when I will speak of

731
the distinction between the B.A.O.R. commitment—it was in this connection that the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) quoted some figures —and the specific N.A.T.O. commitment.
It was suggested that we were denuding the Third Division. This is not so. There now remain in Great Britain five infantry battalions of the Third Division, one parachute battalion, the bulk of the Engineer Field Squadrons and a light regiment of the Royal Artillery.
I was asked about the possibility of having more unaccompanied tours in Northern Ireland. As for accommodation generally, the Government are not unhappy over the short-term results. There are certain immediate problems, particularly those connected with such matters as company bases. While they are not as comfortable as we would like, a considerable amount of work has gone into them and many improvements have been made. 1 was looking at one in Ulster yesterday and I was struck by the fact that, given that there is an operational requirement that a company must be in a particular area and while the hall which I saw might not be as good as one would desire, on the whole that part of the accommodation problem is not going too badly.
A much more difficult problem is that of getting troops into Northern Ireland on accompanied tours. The difficulty is that suitable accommodation does not exist in any quantity, and it takes a considerable time to provide it from scratch. We are considering the question of accommodation for all three Services in Northern Ireland generally; and we are looking at this matter from the point of view of the accommodation that already exists there to see if, by using some of it, it will be possible to increase the number of accompanied infantry battalions stationed in Northern Ireland.
For example, a start has been made on this problem by arranging for the replacement of the Headquarters of the 24th Brigade by HQ 8th Brigade on an accompanied tour. I assure the House that we recognise the urgency of the matter, and I am not unhopeful of a satisfactory solution being found.
The hon. Member for Hendon, North asked about officer recruiting. I can
732
give him some figures, but I fear that they are not as detailed as he or I would like because records for male officer recruiting do not exist in detail to compare with the other record. Entry is on an entirely different basis, and it is therefore difficult accurately to break down the relevant figures. [Interruption.] They do not exist as I should like to give them to the House. Some of them exist, but not in the kind of detail you would like.
Officer entries into the Royal Navy in the 12 months ending 30th September, 1969, were 616 as against 683 in the same period last year. On the face of it, this is a reduction of nearly 70. However, I am told that most branches are recruiting at a fairly satisfactory level, though there are shortages of engineers and doctors, and for the first time there is a shortage in the Seaman (General List). I suspect, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister in charge of the Royal Navy would not express himself as wholly satisfied were he standing now at this Box.
Royal Air Force officer recruiting is rather stronger this year. We look like having about 850 air officers and ground officers this year as against 815 last year. On the whole, therefore, the figures here look fairly satisfactory.
The Army is just about holding its own. This year, 259 entered Sandhurst as cadets for permanent Regular commissions, as against the target of 285. In addition, 32 cadets entered Sandhurst to be trained for special Regular commissions. This is the first entry to Sandhurst for that type of cadet. We granted 23 university cadetships in 1968, and this year the number was 29. In 1968 we commissioned 219 special Regular commissioned officers and 134 short service commissioned officers. This year, we may not do quite so well with the special Regular commission, but we hope to do rather better with the short service one.
I hope that that gives at least some of the figures which the hon. Gentleman wanted and which I should like to have given.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman mentioned recruitment of naval officers, and, rather surprisingly, they were the only figures available to him. He gave us the figures as compared

733
with last year. Could he say what the target is?
Mr. Richard: Without notice, I could not. 1 think that I have managed to sort out the problem as regards the non-availability of the figures. It is simply that we are in a position to give the House annual figures, and I am not in a position, as I understand it, to give the House a breakdown of the monthly figures as between officers and other ranks.
Now, one or two other specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking wanted to know whether arrangements either would be made or had been made to ensure that people in the Services who are now 18 will be able to vote at the next General Election, whenever that may be. I am instructed that arrangements have already been made. The Services are anxious that such voters can and should go on registers and be eligible to vote.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the same joy as regards his somewhat attractive notion that there should, perhaps, he current affairs lectures again for all the Services. At the moment, this is not—
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
Mr. Richard: —in the Government's mind. There are no proposals of which I know for the restoration of A.B.C.A., so the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester can, I think, subside again.
I think that those were the only specific questions amid a multifarious number of subjects which came to me on which I am in a position to give, so to speak, considered answers now. As for those which I have not been able to answer, I undertake to write to the hon. Members concerned.
Mr. James Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman say a little more about the committee which is to be appointed?
Mr. Richard: Certainly; I am coming to that. It was not one of the specific topics which I had in mind to try to dispose of in the first few minutes of my speech.
First, a word about the Harrier, a topic raised by both the hon. Member for
734
Hendon, North and his hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew).
The Harrier is an aircraft of great potential, which is beginning to come into service. The hon. Member for Hendon, North asked some questions about close air support for British forces in Germany. R.A.F. Germany is part of 2 ATAF. The re-equipment on which it will shortly be embarking will allow it to continue to make a major contribution to SACEUR's forces during the 1970s. As regards close support, deployment of the Phantom FGR 2 and the Harrier to Germany will start next summer. These are two very good aircraft. The Phantom is the most advanced multi-role aircraft in service with any air force in the world, and the Harrier is the only fixed-wing vertical take-off combat aircraft in service in the world. For the future development of the Harrier, we already plan to increase the thrust of its Pegasus engine, which will increase its performance either in terms of increased range or weapon load or both without loss of take-off ability or lift.
This will increase the flexibility of an already extraordinarily flexible and versatile aircraft. There is also the question of using it in a maritime role. Although the aircraft has been designed specifically for close support of troops in the field, its potential at sea is something which the Royal Navy intends to study closely. Much, however, will depend on further developments, over and above the engine uprating programme, which might be required. The existing Harrier is an ideal aircraft for carrying out trials to evaluate the advantages and problems of operating vertical, short-time take-off and landing of fixed wing aircraft on ships. The Royal Air Force has offered the maximum cooperation to the Royal Navy in carrying out such trials.
The hon. Member for St. Albans asked about the formation of Harrier squadrons. The first was formed at Wittering at the beginning of last month and is in the process of working up. The next will be formed by R.A.F. Germany next year. This is earlier than the timetable which the Government set themselves. The original statement was that the first squadron would be formed by the end of 1969. This speed-up is indeed some cause for congratulation.

735
Three main topics have emerged from the debate. The first, which many of my hon. Friends are concerned about, is the position of boy entrants in the forces and the committee which my hon. Friend announced. The second is the position of the Reserves. Strong feelings were expressed by some hon. Members opposite about what they consider and, indeed, choose to construe as a gratuitous slur on the Territorial Army by my hon. Friend. I have looked at what he said. It is difficult to see how any one could construe his words as a slur unless he wished to construe them as such. The third main topic is the problem of overstretch. I propose now to deal with two of these three points, the boy entrants and overstretch—the latter since it seems to be the main attack by the Opposition today on the Government's defence policy.
The Government are serious about the Committee on Boy Entrants. I agree that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) was being unduly cynical about the Government's motives in establishing it to look at the topic. This is a very difficult topic for any Government to deal with because here, almost crystalised in the one issue, there is a real clash of two conflicting principles. On the one hand, it is an unexceptionable principle, that people should be entitled to reconsider at the age of 18 commitments they may have entered into at the age of 15, 16 or 17, or, indeed, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) said at 13, when he made his own commitment to the Royal Navy. It is clear, therefore, that there is a principle here that at least deserves serious consideration.
On the other hand, and in conflict with that principle, or at least in apparent conflict with it, is the fact that the Ministry of Defence is concerned with providing forces which, in the Government's estimation, are necessary for the defence of the country. On all the information which is available to us, it would not be consistent with that duty to allow boy entrants into the Armed Forces an automatic right to reconsider their decision to join the Services at the age of 18.
I am bound to tell the hon. Member for Beckenham that it is not true, as he alleged, that there is a great deal of
736
information available which would enable the Government to reconcile those two principles. The information is not available in sufficient detail and has not been properly collated, and in the view of the Government it is high time that it was. Therefore, once the Government had taken the decision in principle to re-examine the situation, the next question to be considered was how that examination should take place, whether it should be done purely privately, in the sense of being a Ministry of Defence inquiry with outside experts called in and perhaps very little publicity attached to it, until some Minister made a statement in the House as a result of those deliberations.
The Government have decided that that would not be the right way in which to tackle this problem. Indeed, so much public interest has been expressed in this facet, boy entrants, of recruitment into the Armed Services that the Government thought it right to announce that a Committee was being set up, and also to announce that members independent of the Services would sit on that committee.
What will the committee consider? The non-military members may be of great assistance here. The committee will be asked to consider systematically the terms and conditions upon which boy entrants come into the Services. The committee will be asked to consider the age limits, the general right to contract out at the age of 18, whether obligations undertaken at an age earlier than 18 are in fact to be enforceable by the Services despite the youthfulness of the contracting party. I suppose that what the committee could do, which no individual Government Department is able to do, is to bring a great deal of expertise to attempt to find out whether the feelings which are expressed by some boy entrants —that they would like to leave the Services early—are genuine, or are just temporary grumbles. It is on this issue that we do not have sufficient information.
I was asked a number of questions about matters such as the taking of evidence by this committee. The way in which the committee takes evidence will primarily be a matter for the committee itself to decide. This is perfectly normal procedure and the Government wish to follow it in this case. I can give

737
an undertaking and an assurance that the substance of the committee's decision will be conveyed to the House, but it would not be right for me to give assurances that all the evidence will be published. Some of it, naturally, will be somewhat personal and connected with various individual cases of people who joined the Services at an early age and then felt that it was not the life for them. It would, therefore, not be right to give the undertaking that all the evidence will be published. Nevertheless, I can say that it would be the Government's wish that as much as possible of the evidence will be published, so that the House and the country may have a full view and a full examination of the whole problem.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Would my hon. Friend tell the House whether the committee will be empowered to commission any research?
Mr. Richard: That, too, would be primarily a matter for the committee. I should be reluctant to say yea or nay whether the committee could or should commission research. What I can say is that if a full-scale examination is to take place, personally and without any attempt to influence the committee in any way, I think that it would seem extremely difficult for a committee of this sort considering this sort of issue to come to a firm and definitive conclusion unless there were either some research undertaken by the committee, or unless it had the benefit of such research as was already available.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: For the sake of clarity, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what the size of the problem is? How many boy entrants are there in the Services? What is the percentage of boy entrants who leave the Services between the ages of 15 and 18? What is the percentage of boy entrants of the total Services force? Can we be given some idea of the proportions of the problem?
Mr. Richard: I can give the hon. Gentleman some figures. The number of boy entrants per year in the Services is around 12,000. The figure of those who actually leave per year is about 10 per cent. As to how many would want to leave if they could, that is precisely the issue which I trust this committee will be able to deal with. I hope that the
738
House will feel that the Government in their approach to the problem are being reasonable, sensible and as helpful as possible in trying to reconcile these two principles which appear to conflict. What we are trying to do is reconcile the obvious, the plain duty of the Government to ensure that our forces are up to the strength required with again, the plain principle which says that a lad who signs a form at the age of 15 or 16, which he probably does not wholly understand, should not be bound by that signature.
Again it has been inevitable that a fair part of this debate has concentrated in and around Northern Ireland. After all, "engaged" in Northern Ireland there are British troops doing a most difficult job. I was very pleased to hear from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) the sincere tribute that he paid to the work that the Army is doing in Ulster. In general, internal security work calls for a sensitivity of approach and a degree of political acumen and awareness rarely asked of soldiers or politicians. It is rarely asked of people going about their ordinary business.
To ask British soldiers to perform that type of work in their own country is, perhaps, asking too much of them. It is a tribute to the skill of the British Army that the trouble in Ulster has not been greater than it is. When I knew that this debate was to take place about a month earlier than it normally does—and having been in my present office for about four weeks. I could have done with that extra month—I thought it might be instructive to me and helpful to the House if I listed precisely what it is British troops are doing in Ulster.
I obtained from the Ministry of Defence a list of the tasks being undertaken by our troops in Northern Ireland. It is an astonishing list. If we look at the infantry we see that tasks being undertaken include road blocks, border patrols, cordon and search, anti-armsrunning operations, traffic control zone, manning police lines, riot control, key point guards, mobile patrols in urban and country areas, and community relations. We all know that that last item in the context of Ulster is particularly important. I am happy to say that it seems to be going well. The Royal Armoured Corps is engaged in border

739
patrols, mobile patrols in urban and country areas and mobile cover for infantry. The Engineers seem to have a very large list of tasks, clearing barricades, wiring and erecting barriers, erecting Twynham huts, improving troop accommodation, community relations, and something which is called "winterisation".
I am not exactly certain of what winterisation entails, but if it means what I think, then I trust that we can eradicate it from Ministry of Defence literature in future. All of the tasks being performed in Ulster raise two or three other questions. The first is, are the Forces doing what they are being asked to do well'? and the second is, if they are doing it well, can we, in the House, the Government or the country, help more than we are doing? I do not think I need argue the first point here. No one has criticised the behaviour of British troops. One of the interesting, remarkable and encouraging features of the whole operation in Ulster has been the remarkable absence of complaints against the behaviour of British troops. I am pleasantly surprised that complaints have been absent on both sides.
I suppose that the second question, namely, whether we can help the Services more, raises a number of other questions. Are the troops in Northern Ireland properly equipped? Are there enough of them? Do they have proper accommodation? I am happy to say that no one in the House today—and I have not seen very much comment on it outside the House—has alleged that the equipment which the troops in Ulster have is not sufficient or adequate for the task which they are performing.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: On the subject of equipment for the troops during winterisation, can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that they have sufficient Parkhas—the winter jackets which they wear on night patrols? There is a shortage of them in B.A.O.R.
Mr. Richard: I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that assurance.
On the question of the number of men in Ulster, I was happy to hear the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) say that in his opinion there were sufficient men there. Therefore, the
740
number of men is not an issue between the two sides of the House. On the accommodation question, the short-term accommodation situation is improving and we are looking very hard at the longer-term situation.
That brings me to the main charge and attack which has been made by the Opposition against the Government in this debate, namely, the question of overstretch. It is important that we should look at the precise allegation. From time to time it is expressed in a different way. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), speaking in the House of 30th October, said that the Government were
"negligent of national security and the obligations we have accepted to friends and allies "
His right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) was even more specific. He said:
"… we have begun to be profoundly worried that the Government's present support of N.A.T.O. is beginning to degenerate into lip service; and that existing military and naval forces are inadequate to sustain the support which the Government again profess in the Gracious Speech…. We are bound to have real doubts as to whether the increased military task imposed on reduced battalions remains any longer within their capability."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 387 and 488.]
Today the right hon. Member for Harrogate said that the Government had been negligent in that they should have budgeted for the unforeseen rather more than they have.
If one can condense what might be termed this first charge on the sheet, what seems to be alleged against the Government is that we have allowed the Services to run down to such an extent that they cannot perform the jobs which they have to perform safely and efficiently and that the Northern Ireland crisis has exposed this weakness. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite agree that that is a fair way of putting the charge made against us.
What the Opposition do not seem to appreciate even now is just how critical is the relationship between the size of the Army and the commitments which it might be called upon to fulfil. A smaller Army might be better placed to carry out its tasks provided that the tasks it is given to perform are rational. The argument which took place in successive

741
defence debates and over White Papers in 1965 and 1966 concerned the relationship between the size of the Armed Forces and the commitments which they have to carry out.
Mr. Rippon: Would the Minister deal with the question of our obligations to Malaysia and make it perfectly clear that there is to be no further cut and that the troops which we now have will be able to fulfil our existing commitments?
Mr. Richard: It is a pity that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should raise that point when I have five minutes left to deal with the gravamen of the charge which the Opposition have chosen for this debate. Having made the charge, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should listen to the reply.
The situation concerning overstretch is as follows. This morning I did a bit of basic research for this debate. I listed calmly I hope, and clearly and simply, exactly where in 1964 the previous Administration of which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) was a member, had forces. The list was this: in Hong Kong, the Pacific, Borneo, Sabah, Sarawak, Singapore, Malaysia, Aden, Bahrein, Kuwait, Sharjah, Libya, Cyprus, Malta, Gibraltar, Western Germany and the United Kingdcm, Northern Ireland, the Caribbean, the, North Atlantic, the South Atlantic, East Africa and Swaziland, and even in the Antarctic; and on top of that they were then attempting to run a global naval and air presence.
What was the size of the Army? It was running at 175,600. What is the size of the Army today?-163,300. That is the crude comparison on overstretch. On any comparison of overstretch between the situation as it was when this Government assumed office and what it is today, if overstretch was ever overstretched it was overstretched on 15th October, 1964.
I will give the House one or two more figures because it is important that these figures should be stated categorically and openly in the House of Commons and not ignored by hon. Members nor in the columns of the Press and elsewhere. What do we have available to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland? One thing is absolutely clear, that if the situation in
742
Northern Ireland had happened in October, 1964 it could have been dealt with only by a massive withdrawal of infantry battalions from the British Army of the Rhine. There was no other way in which it could have been done.
In June, 1964 there were 66 infantry battalions in the British Army, 19 of them in the United Kingdom, 20 in B.A.O.R. and Berlin, 15 in the Middle East, 8 in the Far East and one in the Caribbean. When the trouble started this year in Northern Ireland the total battalion strength of the British Army was 59 and in the United Kingdom unlike 19 in June, 1964 there were 30 battalions, in B.A.O.R. and Berlin there were 17 and in the Middle East 7. The reduction, which is where the forces have come from to enable us to perform the task we have been performing in Northern Ireland, is a reduction of eight battalions in the Middle East, four in the Far East and most of a battalion in the Caribbean. That is how we have managed to engage eight additional units in Northern Ireland without the withdrawal of one unit so far from the British Army of the Rhine.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: What about the 3,000?
Mr. Richard: I can answer the point about the 3,000 quite simply. The hon. Gentleman will know what manning means—the difference between establishment and strength. If one compares the manning now with that of 1964, which is the critical figure, the crucial figure—which is between establishment and strength—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is the crucial figure. If one is comparing the relative strength of the Armed Forces the critical question to ask is that on under-manning and the improvement has been 3,400.
It is all very well for hon. and right hon. Members to complain when the figures are given to them but there is no doubt that in 1964 British Armed Forces were grossly overstretched and to deal with the Northern Ireland situation would have been totally beyond their capacity. The situation today is that we have succeeded in putting ten battalions into Northern Ireland and we have done it so far without making one major withdrawal from any major commitment. That is something of which the Government are frankly proud.
Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Could not the hon. Gentleman recognise that when we were responsible, recruiting was at its best for many years and it was far better than it is now? Re-engagement was also good and we were spending about the same amount of the gross national product. Lastly, are there more people actually serving in Germany now than there were in 1964 or not?
Mr. Richard: The answer is, yes; there are 2,000 more men in B.A.O.R. than there were in 1964, and that is something which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will not accept and have not faced up to.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EXCHANGE CONTROL
10.0 p.m.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
Mr. Joel Barnett (Heywood and Royton): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for enabling us to have this debate on the evasion of exchange control. There are four questions which I want to ask the Minister: first, what action the Treasury proposes to take on the specific allegations made in the Daily Mirror: second, what discussions the Minister is having with the Swiss authorities; third, to what extent the balance of payments is affected by losses from this cause; fourth, how much is lost by this form of evasion?
To begin with the specific allegations made in the Daily Mirror on 5th November, I should like to quote from an article by a reporter, Patrick Lay, who opened a numbered account in what he describes, quite rightly, as a respected Swiss bank. The bank is Julius Bar and Company and the address is 36 Bahnhofstrasse, Zurich, where he saw a Mr. Hansjurg Kagi. Having opened his numbered account, he said that he was a British citizen and asked how he could manage to get sterling into the account in Switzerland. He asked if he had to smuggle it out in a suitcase. He was told that it was not necessary to go to these lengths, and I quote what he was told by this Gentleman in the Swiss bank:
744
" There is an easier way, though it would cost you a little bit more. There are people here [in Zurich] who would take the money off you in England and deposit it here in your account for a fee. A lot of money comes to us from England this way."
Mr. Kagi proceeded to give Patrick Lay the names of two banks which would carry out the deal for him. One bank was the Bank Landau and Kimche, and there he saw Mr. Christian Ambuhl who told him that the job could be done by simply handing over cash, and I quote again:
" You can send me a cheque. The cheque would take three weeks to clear—I can tell you it has to go via Hong Kong—but the rate of exchange is slightly better, we could give you 2·33 dollars to the £ [the official rate is 240]. The rate of exchange if you hand banknotes to our correspondent is slightly lower, but the money is credited to your account in Switzerland within an hour."
I have known for a long time that it is possible to evade exchange control and get sterling out of Britain. I am not so naive as to believe that the Treasury is able to plug every loophole. Here we have a specific named case, and I expect to hear from the Treasury that something will be done about it.
This is more than a holiday travel fiddle. We know that people are able to use business expense allowances and are able, with assistance from friendly doctors, to obtain an extra allowance for holiday travel, but this is more than that. This is evasion on a grand scale, the purpose of which is to evade income tax, surtax, capital gains tax, estate duty and the dollar premium. Tiny amounts are not concerned here, there is no purpose in doing this for the sake of tiny amounts. These are done on a grand scale.
I appreciate the difficulties of the Treasury in this situation, that it cannot stop every case. But now that we have been given specific names and evidence of what is going on, I would expect the Treasury to say that it is not allowing the matter to rest. I want to know specifically what the Treasury have been doing, what it is doing and what it is proposing to do to stop up this loophole which has been made so clear.
The other allegation in the article concerns the evasion through Switzerland, Hong Kong, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the Bahamas, Malta and many other sterling area countries. What is the Treasury doing, now that it has been

745
given specific examples? Of course, it is not possible to prevent a British national from drawing money out of his bank account and handing over either cash or a cheque to a Swiss national, or any other national. The Inland Revenue every five years checks the capital increases of individual taxpayers to see whether there has been an increase in capital from some unauthorised source. I wonder whether it would be prepared to do a sort of reverse exercise to see whether there has been a diminution of capital which is totally unexplained and to inquire as to where the money has gone, because this situation is rather more serious.
Normally, a man would be reluctant to hand over hundreds of thousands of pounds to a complete stranger, but here we have cases brought to our notice where it is not handed over to a complete stranger but to a representative of a respected Swiss bank. Indeed, this particular bank has a recent acquisition in Mr. Roy Bridge. a former assistant to the Governors of the Bank of England. He has been appointed, apparently, to this Swiss bank as an adviser to the chairman. So it is obviously a respected bank, and therefore a British citizen could feel that he could hand over hundreds of thousands of £s and be confident that the money would finish up in his numbered account in Switzerland.
We have a situation now in which we have names, addresses and details and one would think it possible for the Treasury, perhaps in conjunction with the Foreign Office, to bring some pressure to bear on the Swiss authorities to stop up this loophole.
Then there is the case of a colony of this country, Hong Kong. Anyone who has knowledge about the subject knows that evasion has been and is going on through Hong Kong. But Hong Kong is a colony and one wonders what the Government are doing about it. I want to quote what Mr. Robert Head said m the Daily Mirror on 12th November. He referred to a discussion he had apparently had with a former official of the Treasury. He quoted the former official as saying:
" We know most of the loopholes but we don't necessarily want to close them all at once. We would only have to increase the very large exchange control staff in order to detect new loopholes that would undoubtedly open up."
746
Is it true that the Treasury does not want to detect these loopholes or is it really trying to stop them up? It is important that the House should know, because clearly it is a situation which would be considered by most members of the community to be a very serious one. They are prevented from taking more than £50 out of the country, while others can take out many thousands of £s and Treasury officials are closing their eyes to it. I would like to know specifically whether the Treasury would concur in what this apparently ex-Treasury official has said.
I come, then, to the third question which concerns the balancing item on the balance of payments. The Minister will know that in recent years the difference on balance of payments has varied substantially. In the last 10 years, from 1958, the balancing item on the balance of payments has been 67, minus 22, plus 299, minus 25, plus 75, minus 72, minus 13, plus 15, minus 80, plus 176 and minus 130. All those figures prove only that clearly something is wrong with them. It is like a balance sheet which does not balance. But it is not a simple balance sheet. It means not that there is a simple error but that there are a variety of compensating errors where there may be a substantial amount on both sides.
In this instance, it could and very likely does mean that in this balancing item over the years there have been some very substantial figures of capital outflow. I would very much like to know the Treasury's estimate of how much in the balancing item relates to the amount of evasion by this form of smuggling.
This is the worst type of capital outflow. I have complained in this House for a long time that we have allowed far too much capital outflow, even where we had a small amount of return on it. But here we get no kind of return. I would like to know the Minister's estimate of the figure included in the balancing item.
I come now to the final and much more important figure. What is the Minister's estimate of the sum being lost through this form of smuggling? According to the Daily Mirror article which I quoted, the gentleman in Switzerland referred to "a lot of money" which goes out in this way.

747
On llth November, I got some Answers to a series of Questions which I put down to the Treasury. I asked how many people are engaged on the task of checking this form of evasion. I was told by the Financial Secretary:
" In the Treasury, five officers are employed full-time and four part-time in investigations work (excluding ancillary staff)."
In another Answer I was told:
" In the 12 months ending 31st October, the Treasury completed investigations into 445 cases of suspected evasion. Thirty-three prosecutions involving 37 defendants were instituted. Twenty-eight have been heard and all resulted in convictions. One defendant was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment and fines totalling £12,250 were levied on the others. In the same period, H.M. Customs and Excise instituted 65 exchange control prosecutions resulting in fines totalling £112,480 and, in addition, made 3,880 seizures of currency totalling £120,000."
That is chicken feed. It is not the real money. The real money is going out in the ways which have been described and which the Treasury has not been able to find.
I accept that in very many cases it is probably not possible for the Treasury to check because of the reasons that I have given. But if the Minister is now able to say that he is 'taking specific action against the main allegations made in this article, clearly it could have a very important effect on preventing what in effect is a form of conspiracy between Swiss banks and British citizens illegally to evade British exchange control. It could also have a deterrent effect in that it might well prevent many millions of £s leaving the country.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House tonight that he has taken and will be taking action to prevent the kind of specific allegations that are made happening again.
10.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. William Rodgers): I am glad that my hon. Friend has had this opportunity of raising an important matter about which he and other hon. Members have been very concerned. I have noted with care all the points that he has made. I hope that he will understand when I say that in some cases his purpose, and mine, which in this case are the same, may
748
be best served by the minimum of detailed comment. I entirely share the spirit of his remarks.
As my hon. Friend said, there is nothing new in the story to which he referred, first told in the Daily Mirror on 5th November with a further instalment yesterday. There have been other recent articles—for example, in both the Financial Times and the Daily Telegraph last week—drawing attention to the cashing of sterling area travellers' cheques in New York. The methods of evasion described in both cases are aspects of what has long been known as the "Kuwait Gap", although it may not necessarily involve Kuwait. There are aspects involving Hong Kong and, as he said, Switzerland.
My hon. Friend asked me to give an assurance that we were not allowing the specific matter to rest. I can give that assurance. The identity of the man whose photograph appeared in the columns of the Daily Mirror yesterday is known to the authorities and further inquiries will certainly be made.
The result of the "Kuwait Gap" is a loss of foreign exchange through the evasion of United Kingdom exchange control. These losses are regrettable and have been a matter of close concern to us for well over a decade. In amount they are not significant. I hope that my lion. Friend, at least this evening, will not press me to go further. They show as an outflow in the balancing item in the trade figures. But I agree that the loss cannot be ignored. In fact it has not been ignored over a considerable period.
We deplore most strongly the action of those United Kingdom citizens who, through the use of the "Kuwait Gap", or whatever we choose to call it, and the evasion of exchange control, knowingly behave in a way damaging to this country. There is certainly no question of closing our eyes to this. I can think of few more unpatriotic acts over the last few years than to transfer, illegally, considerable sums of money abroad at a time when the balance of payments has been of first importance to Britain. Those involved are, fortunately a tiny minority, but there is not one word to be said in their defence. They let down all those who are working extremely hard to put Britain on a sound economic footing.

749
Although the phrase "Kuwait Gap" has come into quite general use as a description of operations of this kind, they are not necessarily confined to Kuwait. They can be routed through any part of the sterling area in which the local exchange control is, for one reason or another, not fully effective, or where, as in the case of Hong Kong, there exists a recognised free market. The essential features are that the initial sterling payment by the United Kingdom resident who is to benefit from the transaction is made within the sterling area, but to one of those parts of it. The transfer from sterling into foreign currency having been effected outside the United Kingdom, the foreign currency value is then made available to the United Kingdom resident in some destination of his choice—not unusually a Swiss bank.
This is the procedure. I mention it because I think it helps to illustrate some of the complications in the total matter with which we are dealing. Complete closure of the gap would be possible only by bringing to an end the sterling area as it operates today. I need hardly say, whatever views may be held about this, that this would bring into consideration very wide counter arguments, with implications for our balance of payments of much greater moment than the losses incurred through the gap.
In addition, one feature of the channels of operation which are used is that in the majority of cases no infringement of United Kingdom law is involved, and this is important. Many of the transactions are entirely legitimate. A wide range of transactions involve the movement of funds which is in no way contrary to United Kingdom exchange control, although it may be offensive to the exchange control or other laws of other countries. This adds to the difficulty of picking Jut those transactions which are in breach of United Kingdom law.
It is generally the case that, at some stage in the chain of transactions involved, payment will be made through some United Kingdom bank account. I am glad to say that on a number of occasions we have had valuable assistance from banks in this country in tracking down particular channels of operation which have developed through accounts with those banks. This is how
750
ever by no means a sufficient method of detection because it is frequently outside the ability of the banks concerened to recognise particular transactions of this kind as forming part of some chain which, more remotely, involves exchange control offences. Again I emphasise the complications of the situation.
It remains a matter of great importance that the losses should be limited, and that the exploitation of the gap should be made as difficult and hazardous as possible. To this end, very considereable efforts are continually made by the term of Treasury enforcement officers with valuable assistance from officers of H.M. Customs and Excise and the police, and I think that my hon. Friend need not doubt that if any further steps are necessary in terms of personnel they will certainly be taken.
It is a constant battle, but some measure of the success of it is that the scale of operation has not expanded during the last year or two when against the background of international currency fears, it might have been expected to. This is in large part attributable to the deterrent effects of our investigation and prosecution success. I noted what my hon. Friend said, but I have every reason to say that British exchange control is more effective and more effectively enforced than that of any other comparable country, notwithstanding the complexity of international transactions passing through London. I am not saying that that is a reason for complacency, but I think that it should be firmly on the record.
Mr. Barnett: How can my hon. Friend say whether it is effective if he does not know what is going out?
Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend misrepresents me. I did not say that we had no idea of how much was going out. I said that in all the circumstances it did not seem to me, bearing in mind the interests that both he and we have, to mention the sort of figures which may be involved.
A good deal of the work has consisted in the discovery by search in appropriate quarters for links in the chain of transactions which is extended until the prime movers, and, in particular, the United Kingdom residents benefiting from the

751
transactions, are identified. Among the hundreds of cases which have come to notice, many have proved not to involve breaches of our law, and others, involving relatively small sums and transactions in which there has been some element of mitigation, have, after consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions where appropriate, not led to legal action. But there have been in this same period of two years successful prosecutions against about 30 people involved in transactions of amounts varying up to £ million, although most individual cases are for sums a good deal smaller than that. Additionally, there are some former United Kingdom residents who, having emigrated and taken funds with them, would be imprudent to return unless they have some very good explanation for the transactions which they appear to have carried out.
In general, the courts have been severe in dealing with these cases which have usually been reasonably prominently reported at the time.
Perhaps I can mention one or two examples. In a recent case a man who had acquired property abroad and transferred money to a bank account abroad was prosecuted. After detection he took steps to reverse the effect on our reserves of all his illegal transactions at some cost. He was fined £2,000. In another case an official of a Brussels bank purchased securities in New York which were placed to the order of a United Kingdom resident, payment being effected through a Kuwait Gap account. The United Kingdom resident concerned was fined £11,000. There is an interesting case not yet closed when a channel making use of the account of a British company with a British bank in London was discovered. Some £250,000 had been paid into the account evidently for the subsequent transfer through the Kuwait Gap. The sum of £85,000 still remained in the account at the point of discovery. This was immediately blocked and remains blocked as far as any benefits for non-residents are concerned in the absence of a satistory explanation of its legality. Officers of the British company concerned were fined a total of just over £1,000 for their complicity in the operation.
752
It is of some interest that the Swiss bank which was evidently associated with these transactions has dismissed from its employment the bank official alleged to have been concerned in organising them.
I turn briefly to the position of the Swiss banks. As I indicated, Swiss banks operating in Switzerland and elsewhere outside the United Kingdom stand outside our jurisdiction in relation to these matters. Moreover, they are not in breach of Swiss law and in the normal way companies and institutions resident and operating in other countries cannot be expected to govern all aspects of their conduct by the requirements of legal systems in our own or any third country. Nevertheless the Government regard evidence of active participation by Swiss banks in these operations as being regrettable and this is particularly the case with any Swiss bank which has a recognised branch in London.
There are therefore two aspects to the situation. To reverse the order, there is first the role of the Swiss banks, and whether any steps can be taken to impress upon them the grave view which Her Majesty's Government take of their involvement in the evasion of United Kingdom exchange control. Secondly what can be done in this country to prevent evasion by United Kingdom citizens? My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has discussed this first question with the Governor of the Bank of England. It happens that the Governor will be in Switzerland this weekend, and I can tell my hon. Friend, and I think that this is the answer to his second and perhaps more important question, that he intends to take the opportunity to impress upon his Swiss opposite number the importance which the Government attach to losses of foreign exchange which can be promoted through these channels.
He will make clear the extreme undesirability of any respectable banking institution becoming actively involved and will seek his colleague's co-operation. It would be wrong to lay the principal blame for these problems on foreigners. Their activities may be from our point of view, and surely are, undesirable, but there would be no room for them if it were not for the United Kingdom residents seeking to break the law. It is for this reason that I draw attention once

753
again to the risks of detection and the possibility of severe penalties on prosecution. We take a very grave view of evasion and as more channels become known to the authorities the risks are likely to increase. We shall certainly take every step we can to catch and bring
754
to justice those in breach of currency regulations, whose actions are contemptible and beyond excuse.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary School Mossley
  Primary School Mossley
  C.E.R.N. (British Participation)
  C.E.R.N. (British Participation)
  Comprehensive Education, Norfolk
  Comprehensive Education, Norfolk
  Regent Street Polytechnic (Foreign Students' Fees)
  Regent Street Polytechnic (Foreign Students' Fees)
  Royal Shakespeare Company (Grant)
  Royal Shakespeare Company (Grant)
  Nursery Schools, Wales (Welsh-language Instruction)
  Nursery Schools, Wales (Welsh-language Instruction)
  School Facilities (Temporary Buildings)
  School Facilities (Temporary Buildings)
  School Building Projects (British Materials)
  School Building Projects (British Materials)
  Primary School, Wath
  Primary School, Wath
  Special School Buses
  Special School Buses
  Educational Building Allocations (Minor Works)
  Educational Building Allocations (Minor Works)
  Secondary Education Re-organisation, Bedfordshire
  Secondary Education Re-organisation, Bedfordshire
  Primary and Secondary Education Staffing Ratios
  Primary and Secondary Education Staffing Ratios
  School of Architecture, Hull
  School of Architecture, Hull
  Tyneside Film Theatre
  Tyneside Film Theatre
  International Youth Exchange
  International Youth Exchange
  Polytechnics (Student Health Services and Careers Advice)
  Polytechnics (Student Health Services and Careers Advice)
  Higher Education Courses
  Higher Education Courses
  Drama Students
  Drama Students
  Medical Research Council Laboratory Animals Centre
  Medical Research Council Laboratory Animals Centre
  Secondary Schools, Petersfield (Extended Courses)
  Secondary Schools, Petersfield (Extended Courses)
  Canals (Construction Records)
  Canals (Construction Records)
  Schools, East Riding (Size of Classes)
  Schools, East Riding (Size of Classes)
  British Railways (Records)
  British Railways (Records)
  London Transport Museum
  London Transport Museum
  Railway Museum and Record Office, York
  Railway Museum and Record Office, York
  Young Volunteer Force Foundation
  Young Volunteer Force Foundation
  Psychologists in Education Services (Summerfield Report)
  Psychologists in Education Services (Summerfield Report)
  Independent Boarding Schools
  Independent Boarding Schools
  British Theatre Museum
  British Theatre Museum
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Grants)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Grants)
  Staffing Ratios
  Staffing Ratios
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Boards of Governors
  Boards of Governors
  Schools for Disabled (Use of Cane)
  Schools for Disabled (Use of Cane)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Chelmsford Prison (Prisoner)
  Chelmsford Prison (Prisoner)
  Young Persons (Supply of Intoxicating Liquor)
  Young Persons (Supply of Intoxicating Liquor)
  Fines
  Fines
  London Cab Act, 1968 (Section 4)
  London Cab Act, 1968 (Section 4)
  Springbok Tour (Demonstrations)
  Springbok Tour (Demonstrations)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Durham Prison (Top Security Prisoners)
  Durham Prison (Top Security Prisoners)
  Mr. Christos Kotronis
  Mr. Christos Kotronis
  Wakefield and Leeds Prisons (Prisoners)
  Wakefield and Leeds Prisons (Prisoners)
  Experiments on Live Horses
  Experiments on Live Horses
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Pearson Commission (Report)
  Pearson Commission (Report)
  Fiji (Overseas Service)
  Fiji (Overseas Service)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Prices, Incomes, Monopolies and Restrictive Practices
  Prices, Incomes, Monopolies and Restrictive Practices
  Out-workers
  Out-workers
  Agriculture Training Board (Levy)
  Agriculture Training Board (Levy)
  Workers, Wales (Training)
  Workers, Wales (Training)
HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  International Sporting Engagements
  International Sporting Engagements
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Cereals (Minimum Import Prices)
  Cereals (Minimum Import Prices)
  Rabies
  Rabies
  Flood Prevention (Builth Wells)
  Flood Prevention (Builth Wells)
  Farne Islands (Seal Culls)
  Farne Islands (Seal Culls)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  50p Coin
  50p Coin
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Tax Revenue, Isle of Wight
  Tax Revenue, Isle of Wight
  Customs and Excise Duties(Scotland)
  Customs and Excise Duties(Scotland)
  Motorists (Taxation)
  Motorists (Taxation)
  50p Coins (Copper and Nickel)
  50p Coins (Copper and Nickel)
  10s. Notes
  10s. Notes
  Euro-dollar Borrowing
  Euro-dollar Borrowing
  Re-investment of Profits
  Re-investment of Profits
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
  Mortlake Road, Kew
  Mortlake Road, Kew
  Tyre Pressure Gauges
  Tyre Pressure Gauges
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drug Containers(Labelling)
  Drug Containers(Labelling)
  National Insurance Contributions and Benefits(Isle of Wight)
  National Insurance Contributions and Benefits(Isle of Wight)
  Birmingham Hospital Board(Press Relations)
  Birmingham Hospital Board(Press Relations)
  National Health Service(Physiotherapists)
  National Health Service(Physiotherapists)
  NICKEL SUPPLIES(PRIORITY USES)
  NICKEL SUPPLIES(PRIORITY USES)
  CIVIL LIST, MINISTERS, MEMBERS AND JUDGES
  CIVIL LIST, MINISTERS, MEMBERS AND JUDGES
  PRIME MINISTER(GUILDHALL SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER(GUILDHALL SPEECH)
SCOTLAND
  Crofters
  Crofters
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)
  Hamilton College of Education(Suspension of Student)
  Hamilton College of Education(Suspension of Student)
TECHNOLOGY
  Skyvan Aircraft
  Skyvan Aircraft
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Board of Trade Factories
  Board of Trade Factories
  Welsh Slate Industry
  Welsh Slate Industry
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
BOARD OF TRADE
  Farmers and Market Gardeners (Bankruptcies)
  Farmers and Market Gardeners (Bankruptcies)
  Privately-Owned Licensed Airfields
  Privately-Owned Licensed Airfields
  Hearing Aid Council Act, 1968
  Hearing Aid Council Act, 1968
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)
  Pension Schemes (Nationalised Industries)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

NATIONAL HEALTH HOSPITALS AND AGENCY NURSES
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what number of agency nurses are employed by and what is the cost to the National Health Service.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, the number of agency nurses in post in National Health Service hospitals in England and Wales at March 31, 1969, was 1,814; this represents a whole-time equivalent of 1,801.
BARONESS BROOKE OF YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what is the Government's present policy towards the employment of agency nurses in hospitals which are clearly understaffed in their nursing establishment? Arising out of that, could the noble Baroness tell us whether the Government approve of student nurses' being taken out of study blocks to plug the nursing gap because of understaffing?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, in answer to the first question which the noble Baroness put to me, I may say that the Department's policy has always been quite clear: National Health Service hospitals should be staffed by directly employed nurses and midwives on Whitley rates of pay and conditions of service. The second question, I suggest, is not relevant to the subject we have under discussion.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she could give
758
me a reply to the second part of my Question which concerned the cost to the National Health Service of employing these 1,000-odd nurses?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I apologise. The payments to nurses' agencies totalled approximately £1,050,000 in 1968–69.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend when this expensive policy is going to end? is she aware that these very expensive agency nurses have to be employed because young women are refusing to enter the nursing profession owing to the poor conditions? Can she say when the Government are going to adopt an entirely different attitude towards these girls?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that the amount spent on the salaries of agency nurses represents 0·5 per cent. of the total salary bill of the nursing staff in the National Health Service. With regard to the second point, in our debate yesterday I made a statement to the House about the current situation regarding negotiations on nurses' pay claims.

VIETNAM WAR AND THE GENEVA CONFERENCE
3.8 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Soviet Government through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, as Co-Chairman, the reconvening of the Geneva Conference with a view to establishing peaceful conditions in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the parties to the conflict in Vietnam and the Soviet Co-Chairman are all well aware that we are ready to act in any way that might help to end the war in Vietnam and assist the situation in the neighbouring countries. Should those directly involved desire it and the Soviet Co-Chairman be agreeable, we would of course be prepared to take any action in our capacity

759
as Co-Chairman that seemed desirable or feasible.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply, so far as it goes, may I ask my noble friend this question? When was it that the British Government made their last approach to the Soviet Government in this matter? I know that they have made many. Is it not the case that there was a very favourable response in 1965, broken down only by the distorted Tonkin Gulf episode? In view of the fact that the parties now accept the Geneva Agreement, is it not now possible to take steps to try to re-convene the Geneva Conference?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Soviet Government are well aware of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government and this has been made clear on a number of occasions. The particular point to which the noble Lord is directing his argument is surely related to what is the best way of stopping the killing in Vietnam. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government—and I have no reason to suppose that the Soviet Government dissent from this—that now that talks are directly going on between the combatants it would be better that they should in fact negotiate and bring this war to an end. Although, as I have made clear, we should be willing to do anything that would help, in our view a further intervention of this kind at the moment would not necessarily contribute anything.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, repeating my appreciation, may I ask the noble Lord to consider these points: whether the Paris talks are not breaking down on the one point of the reciprocal withdrawal of the American troops and the Hanoi troops; whether the thirteen points of the National Liberation Front and the eight points of President Nixon do not establish ground for agreement except for that one issue; and whether President Nixon might not be saved from his present dilemma if the responsibility for a settlement were placed on other Governments as well as the Americans?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I feel that this is very much a matter of opinion. I do not want to go back into past history—on which the noble Lord is much better informed than I. We are not now concerned with digging over the
760
past; and I know that he did not do that. Everybody knows the position of Her Majesty's Government and, I hope, of all peace-loving people in the matter. I believe that the most important thing is that the direct negotiations should succeed. It is our view that an initiative of the kind the noble Lord is now proposing is not likely to contribute to what is the important thing, the end of the killing. But we remain ready at any time to do anything in our capacity as Co-Chairman that seems desirable.

TRUNK ROAD SCHEMES AND LOCAL CONSULTATION
3.12 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the Minister of Transport is imposing a code of secrecy and forbidding his agents to have any discussions with local and private interests—in some cases even with planning authorities—when surveys in connection with work on or improvements to trunk roads are being carried out on his behalf until such time as he is ready to publish a draft order.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, I think the noble Lord has misunderstood the position. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport invariably consults local authorities about trunk road schemes early in their preparation, and in many cases he uses local authorities as his agents. There may also be exploratory discussions with other interests likely to be affected. In limiting consultation at the early stages while proposals are still being formulated, my right honourable friend has in mind that he must be fair to everyone who may be affected by any alternatives and that he must also avoid causing unnecessary blight. His proposals are, however, published in draft, so that all concerned have equal and ample opportunity to make their views known; and there is, from that time, a statutory remedy for blight. My right honourable friend does not make his

761
final decision until he has fully considered all the objections and representations made to him about the draft scheme.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if I did misunderstand the situation I based my Question on his letter to me of October 24, in which he said that under the new procedure interested persons would not be informed of all that was in the Minister's mind until his proposals were ready to be put in the form of draft Statutory Orders, which seems rather late in the day? Would he not agree that while over-secrecy generally in Government administration defeats its own purpose, it is particularly unfortunate just at the time when Mr. Skeffington is going round the country urging a greater and earlier participation by the public in all forms of planning.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, what is happening is that surveys of alternative routes are being made, and the fact that surveyors are turning up with striped poles does not mean necessarily that the line of the road is going where they are surveying. That is one of the reasons why it is the policy of my right honourable friend that secrecy is maintained during the period of the survey, so that nobody gets any false ideas about what is happening and whether his land is likely to be blighted or not, and everybody is treated equally. But when the draft is laid it is at that point that public consultation starts. The Minister at that point consults the local public directly when he publishes his proposals in draft. He is at that point obliged to consider objections, which means that he is definitely not committed at that stage to his published proposals.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in these circumstances would it not be well for the Minister to make this policy of his widely known, because there is disturbance locally when people with striped poles are going about and nobody quite knows what is happening and suspicion becomes rife? I should have thought a public statement at that time would quell at any rate some of these doubts and fears.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, in view of the fact that a friend of mine woke up the other day and found a house burnt down—the future of
762
this house was under active discussion—would he draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the necessity of close contact among all Government Departments, county councils and private individuals?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor? I think that what he says is of importance. I believe that among professionals this situation is in fact pretty widely known. The divisional road engineer in this particular case wrote to the surveyor of the Cumberland County Council before all this started, so the county surveyor was informed of the policy. I agree with the noble Earl that a little co-ordination among the various bodies concerned would be helpful.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, does the answer of the noble Lord mean that surveyors, with poles or without poles, will he going over the farms and property of farmers and landowners without getting permission?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, not without getting permission. They may even discuss with the land-owner the situation on his particular part of the land. But what is entailed in terms of planning will be kept secret until such time as the Minister lays the order.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord make quite clear how far local government authorities can go in making alterations or new experiments without leave from the Ministry of Transport? Is the noble Lord aware of a certain action recently carried out by Banstead Urban District Council, which could well be quite lethal, at a very dangerous crossroads where a roundabout could be easily constructed, and where no warning whatsoever was given of the alteration?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will bring the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, reverting to the original Question of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, may I ask whether my noble friend does not agree that if secrecy is observed until

763
the moment when the Minister has laid draft proposals, it means that alternatives are not presented to the public? That can hardly be called participation at an early stage, in the sense of the Skeffington report.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I say to the noble Baroness that the Skeffington report has not yet been accepted. Its recommendations are being considered. The report was careful to suggest that methods different from its general planning proposals may be appropriate for dealing with, for example, trunk road schemes. I would refer my noble friend to paragraph 221 of the report.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, does that mean that the Government do not accept the idea of participation by the public in decision making?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Of course not, my Lords. All it means is that they are considering Mr. Skeffington's recommendations.

DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF COMMITTEES
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Ailwyn, the Lord Airedale, the Lord Douglas of Barloch, the Lord Strang, the Lord Grenfell, the Baroness Wootton of Abinger, the Lord Jessel, the Lord Champion, the Lord St. Helens, the Viscount Dilhorne, the Lord Royle and the Baroness Emmet of Amberley be appointed the panel of Lords to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLICATION OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In
764
moving this Motion, I would only say that this continues the process, started on November 4, of reappointing the Select Committees.
Moved, That a Select Committee of three Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to consider and report whether any, and if so what, changes in the law of defamation and of Parliamentary Privilege are desirable in relation to the publication of the proceedings in Parliament:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

E. Selkirk

L. Donovan

L. Stow Hill.

That two be the quorum:
That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman:
That leave be given to the Joint Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their Counsel, agents and witnesses, so far as the Committee think fit:
That the memoranda received by the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament in the last session be referred to the Committee:
That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed, but no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order:
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a message he sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to desire them to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

RESTRICTION OF MERGER ORDER 1969
3.22 p.m.
TEIE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)rose to move that the Restriction of Merger Order 1969 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order was made on August 6 this year and laid before Parliament on August 11. Its purpose is to give effect to the Report submitted by the Monopolies Commission under Section 6 of the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 on the merger proposed between the Rank Organisation, Limited, and De La Rue, Limited. The Commission concluded that the proposed merger would operate against the public interest and recommended that it should not be permitted.
The then President of the Board of Trade announced his acceptance of the Report on June 2. I should perhaps explain that it has been the practice of the Board of Trade, in cases where the Monopolies Commission have recommended that a merger would be against the public interest, to invite the chairman of the company or companies concerned to undertake not to proceed with the merger. On this occasion the chairman of the Rank Organisation, as he was quite entitled to do, declined to undertake that the Organisation would not renew their former bid for De La Rue or take any other action to place the Organisation in the position of controlling the De La Rue Company. The President of the Board of Trade then concluded that in order to remove all uncertainty about the position, and to give full effect to the conclusion of the Commission, he had no alternative but to lay the present Order before Parliament.
This is the first use of the powers given by the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 to prevent a merger which the Commission have recommended should be prohibited. In the nature of things, it is directed specifically to actions by the Rank Organisation. In your Lordships' House the Special Orders Committee decided that it was a hybrid Order and accordingly allowed a period during which the Organisation might petition. No Petition has in fact been received.
766
The Order has a twofold application. In the first place, it relies on the power to prohibit the doing of anything which will or may result in any bodies corporate becoming interconnected or coming under common control. In the second place, it relies on the power to declare it to be unlawful to make or to carry out agreements or arrangements —in this specific case, any agreement or arrangement by the Rank Organisation for the acquisition of any stock or shares in the De La Rue Company. Such a provision is necessary to remove all uncertainty and doubts affecting the De La Rue position, because the extent to which the ownership of the shares of one company by another constitutes effective "control" is not defined. It is not defined in legislation and it could vary according to circumstances. To safeguard the position of third parties and avoid legal complications, it has been specifically provided in the Order that this provision is not to apply in such a way as to prevent the carrying out of any legally enforceable agreement which was made before the date of the operation of the Order.
The arguments which led the Commission to conclude that the proposed merger would be against the public interest are fully set out in the Report which was presented before Parliament on June 9. Having received submissions from both companies and having had the benefit of hearing their representatives, the Commission concluded that the merger would bring with it a real and serious risk of damage to the efficiency of the De La Rue business through its effect upon the management personnel and consequently upon overseas trade commitments.
Some criticism has been advanced of the Report to the effect that it perhaps placed an undue reliance upon management factors, which could easily be tested, and particularly on the expressed intention of certain key staff of the De La. Rue company to leave that company in the event of the merger's taking place. I would refer your Lordships to those sections of the Report which explain why in this case such factors were of particular importance. It was because of the need to maintain personal confidence and personal contacts in certain important and

767
specialised aspects of the De La Rue business. I should like to make it quite clear that it should not be inferred from the Commission's reaction in this case or from the Government's acceptance of their Report that statements of the intention by managers to quit in the case of contested merger bids would usually be regarded as a reason for prohibiting a merger.
The Report did not exclude the possibility that if other things were left unchanged the market orientation of the Rank Organisation might lead in certain cases to a more efficient marketing of De La Rue products in the long term. It concluded that there was a serious risk that the efficiency and trading volume of De La Rue would be affected by a merger and that this had particular implications for the public interest, inasmuch as several of its operations are in fields where it is the leading company, or one of the leading companies, which overseas competitors.
The then President of the Board of Trade was satisfied that the Commission had satisfactorily carried out their function of investigating the proposed merger and that their conclusions were sufficiently warranted by the evidence and the arguments provided in the Report. The decision to make this Order was a necessary consequence of this fact, once it became clear that the Rank Organisation Limited would not voluntarily agree not to proceed with the merger. I beg to move that the Restriction of Merger Order 1969 be approved.
Moved, That the Restriction of Merger Order 1969 be approved.—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to welcome the noble Lord to his first legislative speech, as opposed to his speech on the Address to the Throne, and I would congratulate him on the fair and balanced way in which he presented the case for this Order. In passing, may I say that we have one advantage in this House, in that we can see from the Order Paper at once whether the Government are asking your Lordships' House to accept or reject their own Motion on the Order Paper.
768
In moving the acceptance of this Order the noble Lord has raised several issues, and I should like to deal with some of them. The Special Orders Committee reported that there was no precedent for this kind of Order; this is the first Order of its kind that has been made, and for that reason alone, perhaps, it is worth our while to consider what are the issues raised. If I may raise one issue at once, the noble Lord said that the Board of Trade had no alternative but to bring in the Order, in view of the fact that Ranks themselves were not prepared to accede to the terms of the recommendations of the Commission. Of course, the Board of Trade had an alternative course: they could have agreed with Ranks and not with the Commission. I think it is important that we should get these things right as we go along. In a case like this, I feel it is important that the Government should not move an Order unless the case is proved absolutely beyond doubt, because in effect what they are doing is placing an injunction upon a particular firm to prevent them from doing something that legally, apart from the Order, they could perfectly well do.
The findings of the Monopolies Commission are not—and I should think could not be—based on facts in the nature of the case here. They are certainly not based on the records of the two companies, which are in remarkable contrast. They are both highly reputable companies which have an overseas trade. On the one hand there is the Rank Organisation, which in the 35 years of its existence has built up its capital employed to £180 million, and its annual turnover to £200 million, and has increased its return on capital from 13½ per cent. to 23 per cent. in five years to 1968, admittedly largely on the spectacular success of marketing Xerox at home and abroad. On the other hand, there is De La Rue, which has existed for 150 years, and according to the Commission had capital employed of £28 million in 1968, and earned a return on capital of 9·4 per cent. in 1967 and 13·1 per cent. in 1968. Each of the two companies contains some divisions that have been more successful than others. The findings of the Monopolies Commission are based on their collective appraisal, and therefore not on the facts but on future estimates and assessments given to them by the parties.

769
The Act requires the Monopolies Commission to consider whether a merger, or a proposed merger, referred to them by the Board of Trade operates, or may be expected to operate, against the public interest. The Commission must make up their minds one way or the other. They are not allowed to say: "Sorry, we just do not know"; and yet that may be the case when you are peering into the future. It is not enough for the Board of Trade to say: "We do not know the answer. Let us ask the Monopolies Commission", unless at the same time, I should have thought, the law allowed the Monopolies Commission to say: "Sorry, we do not know the answer, either." I think that is something that the Government must consider.
Where the proposed merger would place the resulting combine in a position of market dominance, or would enhance an already existing position of market dominance, we shall all agree, I think, that a reference should be made. In such a case whether the proposed merger was between two companies operating in the same field, or between two companies standing in the relationship of supplier and customer the area of competition would be reduced, and in consequence there would be risks of restriction of supply and of higher prices. There could also in some cases be a loss of efficiency due to the absence or the reduction of competition. These risks are inherent in monopoly, whether in the private or the public sector.
Similarly, where a foreign-based company is seeking to take over a home-based company, most of us would agree that the Board of Trade should consider the merger if it was over £5 million in assets, as the Monopolies and Mergers Act 1965 prescribes; and, if necessary, the Board of Trade should refer it to the Monopolies Commission. When I say "the Board of Trade", I am, of course, a little out of date, because it is now MINTEC; but I am looking at it from the position that existed at the time when the Order was made. Such acquisitions are not necessarily undesirable in themselves, but there is a risk that particular acquisitions, or too many such acquisitions, could threaten national economic independence.
In all these cases I suggest that there is a clear criteria, and it is perhaps not
770
too much to say that that being so the onus of proving beyond doubt that the acquisition is not likely to operate against the public lies with the acquiring company. But in the case now before us there is no such clear criteria. This is a classic case of a merger between conglomerates; that is, two companies, each with widely varying interests, none of which appears to overlap or to conflict. The question of monopoly power therefore does not arise. What does arise is the question that we have often discussed in the past; namely, the size of a conglomerate and the possible effect on efficiency, and particularly on the balance of payments, where one or both of the companies are exporting or trading overseas.
It would seem, therefore, that this proposed merger was referred, as much as anything else, to the Monopolies Commission as a test case. I would ask the noble Lord this question. Would it not have been better if the Board of Trade had referred mergers between conglomerates as a separate issue? The Monopolies Commission have in fact considered the issue on its reference, and have attached some general observations on mergers as an Annex to their Report: indeed, I am tempted to say that the Annex seems to be the most permanently valuable part of the Report. In their conclusions to the Annex they say this conglomerate mergers:
"Their likely or prospective effects on efficiency are in the nature of the case less easy to identify and demonstrate"—
They mean, of course, less easy than in other sorts of mergers—
"but they are none the less important to assess."
Then one has to ask: who should assess them, and where should the burden of proof lie? In the absence of any clear criteria, I suggest that in contradistinction to what are known as vertical and horizontal mergers—those to which I have referred before—the burden of proof should lie with the company to be acquired as to who should assess them. The choices seem to be, first, for the Board of Trade (that is again MINTEC of course) to decide without reference to the Monopolies Commission; secondly, for the Board of Trade to decide after reference to the Monopolies Commission; thirdly, for some other body to be set up to deal with them; and fourthly, to

771
leave it to the market and the shareholders.
I must say that this Report, in my view, is not a very good precedent for consulting the Monopolies Commission on that kind of issue. But the noble Lord has made it clear in his speech that some special kinds of issue arise under this particular case. There are two reasons for my saying this, the first of which is that the reference takes so long. The Board of Trade referred the case to the Monopolies Commission on January 28. The Act requires the Monopolies Commission to report within three months, but allows the Board of Trade to grant an extension of time if it thinks it is necessary. If my calculations are right, the Monopolies Commission took three and a half months to send out this Report on May 15 and the Board of Trade announced its agreement with the conclusions of the Commission in just under a fortnight. I do not think that that was at all an excessive time; I think the Board of Trade dealt with it with commendable promptness. The noble Lord made a pardonable mistake as to the time when a document was laid before Parliament, because as it so happens there was a strike on at that time and the document came before Parliament on June 16, and not June 9.
The general point I am making here is that by mid-June the merger was really stone cold. In other words, the effect of a reference—and I think this must be recognised—of an opposed take-over is almost certainly to kill the merger stone dead, whether or not it is regarded as not being contrary to the public interest. This is very important to recognise. The subsequent examination of the body or bodies is a mere academic formality. It is the act of the Board of Trade, or MINTEC, in referring the case to the Monopolies Commission that really puts an end to the matter right away because of the time that it takes. During the passage of the Monopolies and Mergers Act through this House I argued that there should be whole-time members of the Monopolies Commission who could immediately consider the reference of a proposed merger and report in a matter of days, not weeks or months. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took the point, but I gather
772
that nothing has been done. One must bear in mind that as soon as a company is threatened with acquisition it must immediately start looking at itself, if only to be abe to present to its shareholders its case for opposing the merger, if it decides to oppose it. It would be quite wrong to assume, therefore, that there is any practical difficulty in a quick inquiry, provided that those conducting it can devote their entire time to it.
The second reason I give is that the estimates on which the Monopolies Commission based their appraisal have already been shown to be defective. This is not something for which one can blame the Monopolies Commission in any way, because they had to rely upon the terms that were given to them. In their Report, the Monopolies Commission, talking of De La Rue, said:
"The estimates for 1968–69 and the forecast for 1969–70 foreshadow further substantial improvements both in turnover and profits in relation to capital employed."
In the past week we have had an announcement of the revision of the estimate of profits for De La Rue, and apparently they now think that the estimate is going to be about one-third less than the estimate put forward earlier. I think it is a matter of over £1 million less in profit.
My Lords, if this estimate has proved far out, how much further out is the estimate as to the key personnel who would have left De La Rue had the merger gone through? The noble Lord recognised this difficulty, but it is crucial to the whole case. If "key personnel" includes the board itself, no doubt the board would have stood or fallen together if the merger had been left to the market, although one cannot be sure. The board had every right to fight for the continued independence of the company, and for their own survival. Indeed, they were fully entitled to use as a weapon the ballot they held among their personnel. They showed considerable astuteness in this, but I should have thought it was a tactic that could work only once, and I think that the noble Lord, in rather guarded terms, said this. He said that there were special considerations because of the position of De La Rue with regard to bank-note manufacturing, and the special relationships of the company with other Governments, and so on. I should have thought that

773
the Commission here overestimated the likely change in those relationships. Surely, De La Rue International, Limited, would have continued, whether as a subsidiary of Rank or of De La Rue.
Can we really accept at its face value a ballot of this kind? Surely we should have some regard to psychology. May I put this to noble Lords opposite, because I think they will see the point here? Supposing Marplan or Gallup were now to run a poll, and the question was: "If the Labour Government wins the next Election, will you go abroad; will you emigrate?". Would noble Lords opposite accept the answer to that as a fair expression of intention? No! of course they would not. I want to bring home to noble Lords opposite that it must be very rare indeed for employees to rejoice when their company is taken over, especially if it is a company of long-standing repute—unless, that is, the take-over is a salvage operation. Mergers are not welcomed by employees, whether the merger is opposed or negotiated by their board. Such a ballot is an expression of feeling; it is not, and cannot be, an expression of firm intention. To take such a ballot at its face value is really to cast a slur on the key personnel themselves; on their confidence in their own capacity and adaptability to meet the challenge of serving in a larger and more aggressive organisation. Yet it is clear that the Monopolies Commission attached great weight to this. In paragraph 98 they said this:
"Of much greater importance in our view is the likely reaction of the De La Rue management, as individuals, to being taken over by Rank. We are satisfied that the merger would have serious adverse effects on the present, and in our view efficient, management of De La Rue in the sense that there is near certainty … that several key persons would leave and others, if they remained, would suffer loss of morale".
This thought is picked up by, and twice stressed in, the Monopolies Commission's conclusions, once in referring to the real risk of loss of efficiency, and the second time in expressing the view that Rank, (and I quote) had:
"underestimated the difficulties with which it would be faced and the risks it would run".
It will be a sorry day for Britain if business in this country is to be discouraged from running risks, and from
774
making its own assessment of the risks it runs.
I do not suggest that your Lordships should reject this Order. I think the Order is now the only way for everybody concerned to get out of an impossible situation. The last thing that Rank want, I imagine (I have not consulted them), is that their second offer made ten months ago should now be accepted, because of the rise in the value of Rank's "A" shares, and the fall in the value of De La Rue's shares since then. Rank's "A" shares have risen from 86s. 6d. on the day of the second offer of January 9, to 112s. 6d. this week, while De La Rue's have fallen from 49s. 6d. before the first offer (of course they went up to 66s.-odd after that) to 36s. 3d. to-day. De La Rue's shares are now less than half, 44·2 per cent., of the current value of Rank's second offer. If anyone should say, "Does not that show the wisdom of the Board of Trade in holding up the merger?" I would answer, "Certainly not". Nobody can tell what would have happened to the shares if the merger had taken place early in the year. For all anyone knows, Rank's "A" shares might have stood still higher, on the basis of the future rather than the present earnings, and of the benefits to accrue from the merger.
The points I want to emphasise, my Lords, are these. First, if there are to be references on proposed mergers, especially opposed conglomerate mergers, they must be done quickly. Secondly, there must be clear criteria. Thirdly, I suggest tentatively that the burden of proof that the merger is likely to operate against the public interest in the case of a conglomerate merger, as distinct from vertical and horizontal mergers, should be placed firmly on the company to be acquired. I would also say that it is absurd that a perpetual ban should be placed on any one company, and one company only, acquiring shares in another, and I hope that a further Order revoking this Order will be laid as soon as possible.
Finally, I must point out how difficult it is, as this Report shows, for a mixed outside body of efficiency experts, academics, businessmen and others—however wise they are—to look behind the assessments of future events and trends that are placed before them. And I would conclude by saying: when in doubt

775
let the market decide. There is more wisdom in the market than even MINTEC can compress into the four walls of one room.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would answer this question. Does he not feel that the Government's case for the Order is strengthened, and his own case weakened, by virtue of the fact that the parties in the case had the opportunity of appeal for a period of 14 days after it was considered by the Special Orders Committee—and surely everything he said this afternoon could have been considered in such a Committee. But no appeal came, in spite of the fact that the Special Orders Committee took special steps to see that the parties knew of their right of appeal.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I would not accept that at all. The points that I have been making have been quite different. I have pointed out that the whole thing was stone cold, and there is not much point in making a petition against something which is stone cold.
LORD ROYLE: Warm it up!
3.51 p.m.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, might I speak before the noble Lord replies? I do so with some diffidence, because I had not realised that this matter was coming up. I think I should declare my interest as a part-time member of the Monopolies Commission. I was very interested in the comments that were made on this Order by the noble Lord on the opposite Benches. So often there is a desire for speed in the business world to-day, when speed itself could damage the issues that one has in mind. I was not on the group that dealt with this matter, so I can speak quite objectively; I was not part and parcel of the actual decision.
It was in fact a conglomerate; and the noble Lord has suggested that conglomerates should be a separate issue. I do not see how that could be, because conglomerates, by their very nature, are a mixed bag. It is not easy to make decisions when you have a specific instance to argue and you can move along a direct field without the distractions of moving from one field to another. To imagine that you could get consideration
776
in a satisfactory manner over a very wide field of conglomerates very speedily is, I think, to hope for the moon.
Let us look at the type of men on the Commission. They are men from business, long experienced in business; accountants who are expert in judging the accounts of the various companies; professors who have all the training in the academic field. They sit together examining what these companies have done and what they are likely to do. Trade unionists are there; and I am bound to say that we, as trade unionists, are very much interested in what is going to happen to men—and I do not care whether they be workmen, employers, managing directors, or who they may be. Any suggestion that one should ignore the De La Rue contention that many of these men would leave would be one that would lead at the end of the day to complete frustration. I submit that one cannot merge two big companies like this with the prospect of the main men in the management of one of them threatening to leave, with all the experience and expertise they have, and hope for something successful to come out of the quarrel. I do not think you can take conglomerates as a separate issue; I think you must take each one specifically and examine it very carefully; and that is not going to be done in a matter of days.
Do we want the matter dealt with judicially with a full-time Commission? A full-time Commission, in my opinion, would consist mainly of legal minds, because of analysing the legalities of the particular situation. One might as well put it before a judge straight away. But from the Monopolies Commission one gets the expertise of men from different fields of life bringing all their wisdom and experience to bear on the situation. For what? To see that the consumer is not milked by a monopoly that is against the public interest. I contend that we could not have a better set-up for that particular purpose. Then consideration has to be given to what is going to happen to the men. Inevitably in mergers there is rationalisation, which means redundancy. I do not think it is possible to decide how much redundancy there will be, and what is going to be done about that redundancy, inside three or four days.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I interrupt to say, first of all, that, so far as I can remember the Report, the Commission did not consider what was going to happen to the men. Indeed, I should doubt whether it was relevant in this case, because it was a conglomerate with no conflicting interests, and the whole idea was that the businesses should go on more or less as before, to be reorganised and improved if possible. This was the conception.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, it is some time since I read the Report, too, but I was using the noble Lord's own argument that it was wrong to consider the opinion of certain of the De La Rue employees. I was not arguing on the Report; I was arguing on the noble Lord's particular statement on this point. When we are dealing with these mergers we have, as I say, in the public interest not to ignore the men; and I do not care whether they are managing directors, chairmen or the ordinary men who are running the company. I do not want to carry this matter further. I should like to do some further reading of the Report and have a long argument about it, but the noble Lord says he is not opposing the Motion; he is only expressing an opinion. So I thought that I ought at least to express some opinions as to what has to be done in respect of these mergers which are undoubtedly coming and will become more and more pertinent to the economic life of this country.
Having said that, I would say that there is a trend in America now for graduates to refuse to go into big companies. They are scared at the very size of the companies, because as a result of the education they have been given they do not believe there are men about who can manage these big companies, and that their very size is going to beget inefficiency. In America at the present time graduates are seeking employment with small firms rather than with big firms. This is a tendency which will require a good deal of examination; and to set up a judge to decide what will happen—or judges if you like: a small group of men—I do not think will solve that problem.
The last statement the noble Lord made, that there is more wisdom in the market, I think is very much open to
778
challenge. The market would have a merger in order to create a monopoly because it is good for the people who run that company; they would have bigger profits as a consequence. That is what the market does. Because the market does that, we have set up the Monopolies Commission, and I think it is accepted by both sides of this House that the Commission is necessary. To suggest that the market has more wisdom than the people who are thinking these things out is a complete mistake and misses the reason for the Monopolies Commission itself.
I hope that this Order will go through. It may be, as has been said, that at some time there will have to be reconsideration. I should never object to that, because nobody can tell with certainty what the future holds for any of these companies, either separately or combined. One can only make an estimate. What a Government do with their taxes and interest rates after that estimate can throw the whole scheme haywire. So on this point I should not disagree if in the future it were felt there should be further consideration. Let the further consideration be given. I hope it will be done by a group of businessmen, academics and trade unionists who are prepared to sit for a month or two and consider it, rather than rush a decision which at the end of the day would be fatal.
3.59 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I should like to comment upon some of the points which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I think that a full consideration of some of them would justify a very long debate and would take us far afield. The noble Lord was of course right in saying that this is the first Order of its kind, and I am sure he understood in fact the context in which I said that the President of the Board of Trade had no alternative but to lay this Order—no alternative once he had decided to accept the Report of the Commission and had found that it was not possible to secure an assurance by an undertaking being given by the Chairman of the Company concerned.
I do not think I would wish to comment at any length upon the relative records of the past history of the two

779
companies. This is of course dealt with at some length in the Report of the Commission. But as the noble Lord said, this was a question of looking at two conglomerates. The noble Lord really raised the question of whether the judgment of the Commission in these circumstances and on this issue was one that the then President of the Board of Trade should have accepted. The function of the Commission (made up, as my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland has emphasised, of men of a variety of experience and background and viewpoint) is, in the case put before them, to reach a balanced judgment on the evidence which they can assemble. It is clearly difficult for those other than members of the Commission to reach an independent view and to do over again the work of the Commission, especially on such intangible issues as management quality, compatibility of management teams, the likely reactions of individuals and groups of individuals to a change of management—unless, of course, they have in fact had the facility for doing the whole operation which the Commission themselves have done; seen the people, heard the evidence, examined the facts and the figures. The Board of Trade did not consider that it was required to form such an independent judgment and to repeat the work of the Commission. It was satisfied that the Monopolies Commission had applied themselves properly to the issues which were at stake, and I am sure the noble Lord would agree that it would be inappropriate for us in this debate to try again to go over the ground which the Commission covered in their examination of this matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made the point that events which have taken place since the examination by the Commission have to some extent falsified the expectations which were put forward, in good faith, at the time. But I must emphasise that the Monopolies Commission reached a conclusion in the light and on an assessment of all the facts and arguments that were put before them; and their conclusion was that the effect of the proposed merger would, overall, be harmful to the public interest. The reactions of the management, and no doubt other particular arguments and facts that were set before the Commis-
780
sion, were elements in this consideration, and the conclusion was reached, I would again stress, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case with which the Report was concerned—the character of the companies concerned and the significance of the areas of business in which they operated, with their special expert trade position. I emphasise again—and I hope the noble Lord will not read anything more into my words than I express—that we do not view this case as establishing any general precedent; and in the future, as in the past, it will be necessary to examine any particular merger upon its merits. Indeed, this very necessity to examine the merits of individual cases is the justification for having a procedure such as the Statute has laid down and has applied in this case.
The noble Lord made the point that the two firms concerned were conglomerates and, if I understood him aright, expressed the thought that it might have been better to invite the Commission to make a Report on the issue of conglomerates. Of course, as he pointed out, the Commission included in this Report an annex with some observations on mergers, in the course of which they made some observations particularly on the question of conglomerates. The noble Lord praised this annex—indeed, I think he said it was probably the most valuable part of the Report. Since the publication of this Report the Board of Trade has issued a booklet in which is set out a guide to Board of Trade practice in respect to mergers. That booklet was published at the end of July and in it is reproduced the material from this Report which is headed, "General Observations on Mergers".
Perhaps it would be proper to say a word or two about the position of conglomerates, since the noble Lord has referred to this point. This is not, after all, a new form of industrial organisation. Many of our largest companies are highly diversified. But there has been a degree of public disquiet, and this degree of public disquiet, both in this country and elsewhere, was fairly marked at the time this reference took place. This disquiet about conglomerate mergers does not arise from the belief that there is something inherently wrong in principle in this particular form of structure. I think it would be fair to say that it arose

781
rather from the rapidity with which highly complex organisations can be created in circumstances where perhaps insufficient consideration is given to the problems, including management problems, to be met in their subsequent operation. It was the rapid growth of a number of conglomerates in the United States of America which particularly suggested to some people that there were ways in which the quick appreciation of the reported earnings of conglomerates could tend to mislead the market about the underlying strength of the new structure.
The reference of this particular proposed merger, and of course of the proposed merger between Unilever and Allied Breweries, took place at this time, and I think one could claim that the Commission's Report was valuable in clarifying some of the issues arising in these connections, and in suggesting the further financial information which would be of assistance to all concerned in making their judgments. The conclusion of the Commission was, in essence, that while dangers certainly exist and should be closely watched, both by the Government and by the stock market, these dangers should not at present predispose us against conglomerates in principle, or against the creation of organisations of substantial value. I think that defines the present attitude of the Government. It is an attitude of promoting the examination of cases on their merits, and it is our intention to continue with this policy of examining merger proposals, case by case, in the light of the circumstances.
Perhaps I may conclude by making a brief reference to Lord Drumalbyn's observations at the end of his speech about taking the market as the guide to what is right and desirable in these cases. I do not think we dissent from the view that, generally speaking, it is the market that makes judgments about the prospect of industrial firms and about their combinations with each other. The great majority of mergers have always been decided by the views of the stock market upon them, and so far as we can see that will continue to be the case in the great majority of examples. But there surely are occasions, and there are respects, too, in which the market can give a misleading picture. There are even cases in which the judgment that is
782
formed—as again my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, suggested—is concerned not so much with the efficiency or the prospects in the long-term of the merged firm as with the value of the consideration here and now. I am sure that examples of this will present themselves to the mind of the noble Lord. As we all know, relative share values are mercurial things. If they were less mercurial and more predictable many of us might be much more prosperous than we are. A case in which this is illustrated (and perhaps this bears upon the relative share movements which were quoted by the noble Lord) is that of the proposal which was current at the same time, to merge Unilever and Allied Breweries. This would have been possible in the state of the market in the autumn of last year, but by the summer it was ruled out by the changes which had taken place in share values.
Finally, a merger may proceed and be countenanced by the market for reasons that have not very much to do with efficiency—desire for institutional growth, defensive actions to forestall possible bids, the "go-go" kind of financial leadership, and so forth. I am not suggesting for one moment that such motives or considerations are illegitimate. The interests of the shareholders may justify them. But where large public corporations are involved, and where considerations of the public interest may arise, the Government cannot avoid the responsibility, in some cases at any rate, of promoting an examination of the efficiency features and of the plans of those involved, even if the only apparent result is delay which may enable those concerned to reflect again. I hope that, in the light of the comments I have sought to make your Lordships will be prepared to approve the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of this straightforward Bill is to transfer to a statutory Board the present functions of three existing bodies: the Radioactive Substances

783
Advisory Committee, appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act 1948; the Radiological Protection Service, run by the Medical Research Council; and that part of the Central Health and Safety Branch of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority which deals with radiological protection.
In the last twenty years we have seen the gradual establishment of atomic energy as a means of providing power and the increasingly widespread use of radioactive substances and of radiation in medicine, industry and commerce. The properties of these substances and of radiation produced by machines are of great benefit to mankind, as we know so well, but, as with other scientific and technical development, there are unfortunately accompanying hazards. It has been necessary to build substantially on the knowledge acquired in earlier years for protecting people from dangers associated with the use of X-rays and from substances like radium, until now there is virtually, I think one can say, a new branch of knowledge and activity generally described by the term radiological protection.
In 1948, at the beginning of the British effort in atomic energy, and the spread of the utilisation of the properties of radiation outside medicine, Parliament passed the Radioactive Substances Act. This was a general enabling Act, as noble Lords may remember, to allow certain Ministers to make regulations for the protection of people against hazards from radioactive substances and ionising radiations. Under the provisions of that Act, the Ministers were required, after appropriate consultation, to appoint an advisory committee whose duty was to advise Ministers on the regulations they were proposing to make under the Act. This Advisory Committee, the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee has a present membership of 16 under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Brian Windeyer, now Vice Chancellor of London University, having recently retired from the Professorship of Therapeutic Radiology of that University and from being Director of the Meyerstein Institute of Radiotherapy at The Middlesex Hospital, roles which those of your Lordships who know him professionally will agree with me he has filled with such
784
success. The Secretary of State for Education and Science is the Minister responsible for appointing the Committee, and the Director of the Radiological Protection Service acts as its technical secretary.
In the field of radiological protection there are several Government Departments who have powers to make regulations and these Departments have their own technical staff to cover their special interests. The purpose of this Bill, however, is to achieve in the proposed new statutory Board and its staff a single national point of authoritative reference and a body which can provide the necessary technical services, both to Government Departments and to others. The Bill provides for a Committee to advise the Board. The Committee would comprise a much wider membership than the Board itself and would enable scientific, medical, employer and trade union representatives, together with representatives from Government Departments with responsibilities for radiological protection, to be associated with the work of the Board. The Committee's function would be to advise the Board and the Board would be expected to consult it on certain matters which I shall explain in a moment.
This arrangements will, we believe, enable the Board to be kept small enough for effective management and yet enable its opinions to be informed by a wide spread of all the interests concerned. Consultation between Board and Committee will be particularly important where the Board is advising Government Departments on technical matters, for example, on regulations applied to those whose work or whose products involve radiation hazards.
I now should like to say a word about the two existing groups of experts we propose to combine in order to form the Board's staff. The first is the Radiological Protection Service which was set up in 1953 under the management of the Medical Research Council on behalf of three sponsors—itself, the Department of Health and Social Security (as it is now) and the Scottish Home and Health Department. The cost of its operations is shared between these three bodies according to the requirements of research, that is, the Council, and services, that is,

785
the two Departments. The headquarters of the Service are at Sutton in Surrey in the grounds of the Royal Marsden Hospital. Research is also undertaken there and a radiological protection service provided from that point for the whole of the South-East. There are also regional centres, as many noble Lords are only too well aware, in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow. Your Lordships will wish to know that the number of posts in the Radiological Protection Service at present is 225.
The Atomic Energy Authority, as the House will know, was established in 1954 by the Atomic Energy Authority Act of that year. The Authority is organised into a number of Groups which have various establishments and works. Each of these establishments and works is in the charge of a management which has its health and safety departments covering both radiation and other potential hazards. In 1959, the Atomic Energy Authority decided (after the Fleck Committee Report following the Windscale incident) to create a central Health and safety Branch, whose function is to advise the Board of the Authority in respect of its health and safety policy, to disseminate that policy and to assist in its application, to co-ordinate certain research work, and to co-ordinate the Authority's views in respect of international discussions relating to health and safety matters. The Branch also co-ordinates views on radiation protection matters expressed on behalf of the United Kingdom when requested to do so by the Ministry of Technology who have responsibility for our relationship in technical matters with organisations like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Nuclear Energy Agency. Here again, in view of the changes which will involve the staff I thought the House would like to know that the total number of posts involved in the transfer in this case is about 40.
The Medical Research Council and the Atomic Energy Authority, as a consequence of the provisions of this Bill, will therefore be transferring what amounts to a substantial proportion of their radiological protection staff to the proposed Board. Indeed, senior members of both groups of staff to be transferred are, I think, widely recognised as being among the leaders of world opinion in
786
their particular fields of specialty. Both the Council and the Atomic Energy Authority will contribute to the cost of the Board and will expect to be able to make demands on it for advice and services. The Board, of course, will be expected to meet these demands. The Health Ministers have agreed, subject to Parliament passing this Bill, to appoint nominees of both bodies to the Board.
I am sure your Lordships will agree that the members of the present Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee and its panels have done well, and I should like to take this opportunity, which I am sure other noble Lords will welcome, of thanking all those concerned for the valuable services they have given; but we believe that the arrangements which the present Bill will bring about will represent a considerable improvement. The Committee's functions will be transferred to the new statutory Board, supported by its own expert staff drawn from the Radiological Protection Service and the Atomic Energy Authority, and informed through its own Advisory Committee by the same range of independent expert and representational opinion as exists on the present statutory committee.
My Lords, as I indicated at the outset, the intention of this Bill is straightforward and I hope completely non-controversial, and I do not think the House would wish me to explain the detailed drafting of its seven clauses and two schedules at this stage of our consideration of its contents. An Advisory Group of administrators and experts has already been set up to study the arrangements which will need to be made for the future, and its work will, I am sure, be of great value to the new Board. The scientists and administrators concerned are, I believe, looking forward to this amalgamation of the sources of advice and to the formation of the Board. I should like to assure your Lordships at this stage that the conditions of service of the staff involved in these changes will not be in any way adversely affected by the proposals. I should also perhaps make it clear that the Board will be expected to set up appropriate machinery for consulting with its staff on matters of concern to them. This is a normal feature of public bodies to-day, and the new Board will have, and I am sure will wish to have, its own consultative machinery.

787
We believe that this Bill will improve the co-ordination of our arrangements for radiological protection, give better support to Government Departments, both directly and by means of research, and enable our views to be authoritatively heard in international gatherings. That is the object of the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give unanimous approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Serota.)
4.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, as usual we are most grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining this Bill to us so clearly. She always does this very well, and it is appreciated on both sides of the House. I think it makes a good deal of sense to bring together the services of the Medical Research Council and the Atomic Energy Authority in dealing with radiation hazards and the health and safety problems involved. The Bill is certainly not controversial in a Party political sense, it fortunately does not appear to cost any money, and I believe there is going to be no overall increase in manpower. In fact, I hope that economies may result. I think, therefore, that we on this side of the House should support the Bill.
There are, however, just a few points I should like to make and questions I should ask. One is that it seems to me that to a certain extent this Bill involves an erosion into the Haldane principle under which research of this kind, research conducted by the Research Councils such as the M.R.C., and even the Atomic Energy Authority, have operated in the past. I think that on both sides of the House we still pay more than lip service to the principle that the Research Councils should be free to follow up those lines of investigation which they consider would be useful or rewarding, without interference from executive Departments. It is because of our respect for the Haldane principle that the Research Councils are administered by the Department of Education and Science and not by the executive Departments which might be considered to have the most direct interest in their work; that is to say, the Ministry of Health and Social Services, in so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned, and the
788
Ministry of Agriculture in respect of the Agricultural Research Council. I realise that the Haldane principle cannot be accepted completely uncritically, and we could have an interesting debate on the whole subject of academic freedom. It can be very costly to let certain lines of research drag on too long without results. I accept, therefore, that there must be exceptions to the general rule of executive Departments not interfering with certain research work—that is to say, especially fundamental as opposed to applied, or, as the Americans call it, mission-oriented research.
In the case of these radiological protection services I should not like to think that the Health Ministers concerned who are referred to in Clause 1(4) of the Bill would be solely (and I repeat the word "solely") responsible for directing the work of the services concerned. I am therefore glad to see, both in connection with Clause 1(6) and (7), and indeed in Clause 2, that the Secretary of State for Social Services can confirm a new function of the Board only in consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority and the Medical Research Council, and that Ministers in executive Departments will not give any direction to the Board except after consultation with these bodies. This is probably quite a good sort of middle road to take. However, I should like to ask the Minister where the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology now come into all this. They are not, in fact, mentioned in the Bill. After all, as I say, the Research Councils are looked after by the D.E.S., and the Atomic Energy Authority comes within the purview of the Ministry of Technology. Will the D.E.S. and MINTEC—or "MAXTEC" as we now call it (it is certainly by no means a "MINTEC")—no longer be concerned with these services? Will they be solely the responsibility of the Health Ministers? I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would elucidate this point.
When many Departments are involved there can be serious delays in decision making. Could the Minister also assure us that in a general way the Government still agree that the Haldane principle regarding the independence of the Councils should continue to be honoured? I gather that the M.R.C. are reasonably happy about all this, and that in so far as fundamental research

789
is concerned they will continue to be the body responsible for conducting it. I understand also that they will be strongly represented on the new Radiation Protection Board which is, I gather, only taking over operational research directly connected with these particularly technical services. I hope I am right about this.
My Lords, I think we should all welcome the new Chairman. This is a most distinguished appointment. We welcome him, and we shall also welcome the other members of the Board and of the Advisory Committee. It sounded to me, from what the noble Baroness said, that this was an admirable composition, but I shall be interested to know when she will be able to announce the full list of names. I understand that, apart from Windscale—and perhaps even Windscale was not so very serious an accident—there have so far not been any serious accidents involving radiation; but I appreciate that great precautions must be taken and that there must always be a fire brigade available to deal with possible mishaps. The obvious advantage of pooling the resources of the M.R.C. and the A.E.A. in this way is that they can share their different types of expertise. For example, the Atomic Energy Authority obviously has a greater knowledge of the hazards of working nuclear piles, whereas the Radiological Protection Service of the M.R.C. is very familiar with hazards in the use of the isotopes now employed so widely in industry.
There is one other question which I might ask the Minister, as it may be in some of our minds. Can she say whether any of the different techniques or types of monitoring which we use in this country are being used to protect the astronauts, who we hope may still be taking off for the moon to-morrow? I gather that a study of the problems of radiation may be one of the principal objects of this second manned lunar landing and that there are risks involved here. Believe it or not, my Lords, the Americans are actually transporting a plutonium reactor to the moon as a power plant. It is always interesting for your Lordships to know when British techniques or inventions are used by our American friends. We know that a development of the British Bacon fuel cell powers the Apollo spacecraft, and
790
also that the water-cooled undergarments of the astronauts were originally designed by the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, so I wondered whether, in the case of protection against radiation, we could perhaps also claim to have helped the Americans in these truly astonishing and exciting exploits. I know that from our own United Kingdom scientific satellites we are obtaining information concerned with radiation from sun flares, the timing of which seems unpredictable but which present very serious hazards.
Then, too, one has only to read reports of the likely subjects for discussion at the United States/Soviet talks in Helsinki next week to become increasingly alarmed by the prospects of nuclear war in the event of multi-independent re-entry vehicles being used, which with their H-bombs would not only obliterate the United States and the Soviet Union but would also cover the whole of the rest of the world with dangerous doses of radioactive fall-out. The mind boggles as to how our present radiological protection services would cope with that situation, and I wonder whether the Government have any views on the subject. Will these protection services to which the Bill refers be used in these well-nigh unthinkable circumstances, or are there other contingency plans involving other services?
Finally, my Lords, to end on an equally sombre note, I gather that certain degrees of radiation can cause sterility and, certainly, genetic damage affecting future generations. How long, I wonder, will it be before all your Lordships become sterile or have their heredity genes seriously affected. Clearly, this may relieve the Government of the necessity of reforming the House. As I said, all in all, I think we should welcome this practical Bill, and I hope it will result in the radiation protection services being even more effective and efficient than I believe they have been in the past. I should like to join with the noble Baroness in thanking all those who are concerned with them for the admirable job which they have done.
4.34 p.m.
LORD GEDDES OF EPSOM: My Lords, I intervene at this point with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and I shall be very brief. I have only one point to raise, as a result of the

791
statement made by the noble Baroness at the end of her remarks. I want to deal in particular with the position of the staff who are likely to be transferred as a result of the passage of this Bill. As I understood the noble Baroness, she said that the position of the staffs would not be worsened as a result of the passage of the Bill. That ought to be sufficient assurance, but the difficulty is that worsening can be a matter of judgment and of consideration, and I am not sure that the assurance is quite satisfactory to the staff concerned. The noble Baroness will be aware that the staff side of the Atomic Energy Authority were given a precise reassurance on this point at a meeting of the committee on March 7, and the assurance was that the Authority's conditions of service should apply to the whole of the Board's staff. That is not quite the same as the statement now made by the noble Baroness.
I wonder whether it is possible for her to outline the difference between what she has said to-day and the statement which I have just repeated, because it seems to me that paragraph 13(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Bill is not very helpful in this connection. As I understand it, it gives complete authority to the Board,
"to pay to their officers and other persons employed by them such remuneration and allowances as the Board may determine with the approval of the Secretary of State".
That is not really a built-in assurance so far as the staff are concerned, and it certainly does not appear to me, nor, I should think, to your Lordships, to be the same as the positive assurance that the Authority's conditions of service should apply to the whole of the Board's staff. I should therefore be very grateful to the noble Baroness if she could say whether there is any difference. I hope there is no difference, and that she can say that her assurance today is in strict conformity with the assurance given to the staff side on March 7.
4.37 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to say only one very brief word in welcoming this Bill, in which I have a personal interest. I certainly do not want to follow what the noble Earl has said about the dangers of radiation, because I entirely agree with him, and anything that I could say would be
792
merely repeating what he has already said a great deal better than I could.
I am pleased to see this service grow, because in the year 1948 I was one of the members—if I was not an executive member I was certainly an advisory member—of the original committee which was set up under the Radioactive Substances Act. I am very pleased indeed to see that the service which we began is now growing and spreading in such a big way, and I wish this new body every luck and success in the future. I welcome the Bill.
4.38 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I want to intervene merely to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that radiation is a great leveller. It does not apply only to hereditary Peers and any sterilisation will be very widespread. I am speaking not as a former Vice-Chairman of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. to which all the implications of the noble Earl's grim remarks would apply, but as someone who has been pretty closely connected with this subject over the last twenty years at various levels. I want to pay a very great tribute to the people who have been active in the research and in the safety precautions which have been laid down. I was also responsible for a long series of inquiries—or, as they say in America, I was the moderator of them—which were carried out at the University of Chicago into the question of radiation hazard in peaceful industry.
One of the things which impressed us over the years was the manifest truth that, largely as a result of the apocalyptic cataclysmic explosion of the bomb in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and so on, the atomic energy industry to-day is beyond all question second to none, the safest industry in the world. This is because all the precautions were built in in advance, which was largely due to the foresight, and so on, of the bodies which are now going to be integrated, I think to great advantage. It is the safest industry in the world because the precautions are built in. I only wish this were true of a great many other industries. If we were starting the other industries all over again, I think we would be less at hazard from pollution, and so forth, and indeed from dangers

793
to industrial workers, than we are to-day. Therefore, it is very important for Britain; and I endorse the hope of the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, that what has been true for the last twenty years will continue to be true.
The influence of British experts in this field has had a tremendous effect on international determinations in regard to all these safeguards—and not just at the academic level, I may say. The practical applications, through the International Atomic Energy Agency, through the International Labour Organisation, through the Food and Agriculture Organisation and through the World Health Organisation, have been very substantial; and this is something which needs very careful safeguards. The last discussion I had in the United States, at the University of Chicago just a few months ago, on the question of radiation hazards in the peaceful uses of atomic energy was in a way rather disquieting. That is what I want to emphasise to your Lordships. Because of the enormous precautions which have been taken, and the fact that we have had only the incident at Windscale—which, I agree with the noble Earl, fortunately did not get out of hand, though it might have done—there has been over the last twenty years a growing suggestion that the safeguards which exist in industry and in the uses of atomic energy are excessive. I have no doubt at all, my Lords, that they are excessive; and I hope that we keep them that way. Because the feeling I had, when I protested about this idea that we could reduce the standards, was that I seemed to be regarded as the man with the red flag in front of the motor car.
It is true that there is an inclination, partly because of the reassurances which we have had and partly because of our vigilance, our safeguards, that we can now begin to loosen up—and in point of fact you can make more profits that way. But there is one thing on which I can assure your Lordships you cannot afford to make profits, and that is the hazards of atomic energy. It is not merely the industrial workers who are at risk; not merely the people who are in immediate contact with these things. The ultimate truth is that if this breaks away at all then the whole of the environment is affected, and the population itself is at risk. It is
794
important in this regard to realise just what are the standards that we are trying to establish. They are not merely standards which apply to the individual, in terms of what might be his misfortune; as the noble Earl has suggested, this is in fact a question of the genetic effects and of hazards to future generations.
This means, my Lords, that in all our attitudes to this question we must preserve a continuing vigilance. I have had my own misgivings over the years, I may say. Fortunately, in my relationship with this subject the danger has not shown itself effective; but there was always a risk in the diversity of interests involved, in the departments involved and in many cases the conflicts of interests involved. I remember that during the great debates and arguments—ferocious arguments—which we had about risks of "fall-out", and so on, officially we were consistently told that there was no real risk, that the "fall-out" was minimal. The proof of the fact that it was not minimal was the test ban which stopped it all. But in these discussions the suggestion made by many of our official spokesmen was that our arguments were being used as political arguments. They were not political arguments; and one of the most comforting things to come out of this long debate over the last twenty years was when, finally, we had the test ban and it was recognised that the atmospheric hazards amounted to just what we had always argued they amounted to.
We had a conference in Geneva in which we as the experts (Britain took the lead) said, when we came to discuss maximum permissible dosage—what industrial workers could tolerate, what people in industry might tolerate—that so far as the general public was concerned there was no maximum permissible dosage. Therefore, you could not stop and say, if something broke away, if there were another incident like the Windscale incident, that you would wait and see whether it reached such-and-such a dosage. You have to take an absolute stand and say, "Beyond the background radiation, there is no tolerable increase, and everything you do—and I hope everything the new organisation will do—must be directed to getting that back to zero as quickly as possible."
4.46 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say just a very few words in this discussion. This is obviously a very good Bill. I do not want to say anything about the merits of the Bill itself, but, as I think I heard my noble friend Lord Geddes of Epsom pointing out as I came in—unfortunately, owing to an earlier engagement I could not be here to hear the noble Baroness open this discussion—it involves some rather complicated points in connection with the transfer of the men who have been working in the Atomic Energy Authority, and for other organisations, to the new organisation. Owing to the speed with which this matter has been pushed on at the last moment, these matters have not been properly tied up. They are complicated, and I do not want to attempt to take up your Lordships' time by explaining them in detail. I have sent the particulars, which were furnished to me by the Institute of Professional Civil Servants, who look after the interests of the men in question, to the noble Baroness.
It seems to me obvious, as an impartial student of this business, that, either in the shape of very clear assurances from the Government or in the form of something being written into the Bill itself, the interests of these men must be protected. As I say, I have sent full particulars to the noble Baroness. There are three points involved here, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give the House clear assurances on them, because otherwise, when we come to the Committee stage, we shall have to try to get these matters written into the Bill. That is all I wanted to say.
4.48 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I thank those noble Lords who have spoken for the general welcome they have given to this Bill? The only sombre note struck, perhaps, was by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough. I must say, speaking as one who has always been in favour of the reform of your Lordships' House and of the abolition of the hereditary principle, that I nevertheless find his suggestion a somewhat drastic way of achieving this reform. May I, on a slightly more serious note, answer the first point he made to us—one which I think must be seen as a major point of
796
principle; namely, whether we should not in this Bill be departing too far from the Haldane principle. Our concern, my Lords, was merely to concentrate and strengthen the present arrangements for providing advice and services, but at the same time we are equally anxious, of course, that such advice should be, and moreover be seen to be, completely independent and unbiased by administrative considerations. Health Ministers have a considerable interest in the effects of ionizing radiations in terms of their effect on the health of the population, but they have no specific regulatory functions as other Ministers have in this field. We therefore think it is reasonable that the new organisation, a major part of whose functions will after all be to provide technical services, should be under the ægis of Health Ministers.
They will have general powers of direction in regard to the new Board. These, of course, will not be—in fact, are not to be—exercised without due consultation, and it is certainly not the intention (I hope this will reassure the noble Earl) that such directions, if given, should prejudice the scientific judgment or advice of the Board. He also raised the question of the relationships of the Department of Education and Science and the Ministry of Technology to the future organisation which the Bill will establish. In terms of consultative machinery this matter we regard as covered by the normal processes of consultation as between Ministers. We believe that the arrangements will work well, with the Health Minister standing in a somewhat detached and independent position consulting with the Ministers responsible for the other Departments. I am grateful to the noble Earl for assuring us that the M.R.C., who as the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, knows have a close concern with this field, are content with the arrangements that are suggested here.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point? May we take it that the Vote, in so far as the financial support of the Board is concerned, will come entirely through the Secretary of State for Social Services and not either through MINTEC or D.E.S.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I will write to the noble Earl on this point, for it is a tricky one. But I think I am right in saying that D.E.S. still makes

797
a Parliamentary grant; and so, I believe, does MINTEC. But I should like to be precise. A number of Departments are involved, as ever, in these matters and financial arrangements are extremely complex. But I will write to the noble Earl, and to any other noble Lord who would like a specific statement on this point.
The noble Earl also asked when we should be announcing the names of the Board. The answer is: as soon as the Bill has passed through its stages. I think the timing will be just right. The noble Earl spoke about the development of British expertise over this great and important field, and asked whether British equipment and expertise was being used to protect the American astronauts. I do not know the answer to that question —perhaps some other noble Lords do. However, I will certainly find out, and I will let the noble Earl know.
The noble Lord, Lord Geddes of Epsom, and, more recently, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked me about conditions in terms of service for the transferred staff. In my opening statement on the Second Reading of the Bill I gave an assurance that no staff would be adversely affected by transfer. I must confess that as I listened to Lord Geddes of Epsom I realise that, from his point of view and from that of the staff, that was rather an over-careful Ministerial approach. I should like to assure all noble Lords, and through them the staff, that it is intended that the Atomic Energy Authority's terms and conditions of service will be applied to the Board's staff. I hope that that assurance will satisfy those noble Lords who concern themselves with this matter.
We all listened with great interest, as ever, to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, one of the world's greatest experts on this subject. I think that, with all our various views about the development of this whole area of scientific endeavour we shall share with him the hope that the British rôle, and the knowledge of all our experts in this field, will continue to be used to develop even further the safeguards against the dangers of radiation hazards. May I conclude by thanking again all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I look forward to the Commitee stage of the Bill where we can, if necessary, explore the clauses in further detail.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRUSTEE INVESTMENTS (NATIONAL DEBT COMMISSIONERS) AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
5.5 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this must be one of the shortest Bills ever to be presented to this House. It is also a very simple Bill, and I think I am entitled to say that it has some very obvious merits. But it is not acceptable to everybody. I raised this subject once in another place, in the form of an Amendment to the Trustee Investments Act 1961, and once here on an Unstarred Question on May 6, 1968. As a result of that Unstarred Question I have some idea of what the Government's attitude may be. This is the purport of the Bill. The Trustee Investments Act was introduced by a Tory Government because it was felt that the law about trustees was too stringent as regards our choice of investments. Both Parties are equally responsible for what has happened. Before that, the National Insurance Act 1946 had provided that there should be two funds: a National Insurance Fund into which all the contributions would go and out of which benefits and so on would be paid, and a National Insurance (Reserve) Fund which was to stand behind that but equally was to be financed out of money that had its origin in contributions to the National Insurance Fund. This was soon after the War, when I think we all had rather a higher opinion than perhaps we have now of the safety of gilt-edged securities as a means of investment. The other clauses have been re-enacted in the recent Act on the same subject and in the same form.
The result of these two measures was that as regards the National Insurance Funds the hands of the National Debt Commissioners—to whom I will refer in a moment—were tied tightly. They could invest only in savings banks securities —that is to say, in effect, in Government stock, and not even in municipal stock. The hands of the private trustee were free to a certain extent—but only to a certain extent—and, subject always to the original instrument of trust, he was allowed to invest in a variety of things that I

799
need not go into but with which many of us will be acquainted because we have had to work the thing. There were securities which required approval, and other securities which could have half the fund, and so on. The net result is that the two funds were tightly restricted and the private trustee at the same time had his hands partially free.
A certain Member of the Government —I do not think I will repeat the name—took part with me in Committee on the 1961 Bill. The last time I raised this subject I said some things that I think went too far. I have since been thinking about it, and I have come to the conclusion that Members of either House of Parliament are, of course, entitled to change their minds; and if they do change their minds over anything they cannot be both consistent and honest. That particular Member chose to be honest and inconsistent. I think he was right, and I do not think I ought to tax him with his inconsistency. With that exception I am not going to mention a soul in this case.
But I am going to say some rather critical things about the Treasury. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am talking about the Treasury as an institution. None of the various successive Ministers has done what I think he ought to have done, and the civil servants concerned have of course done their duty properly. There is therefore, so far as I can see, no Party point whatever in this matter, and there is certainly no personal one. The whole point is: ought the National Debt Commissioners, or ought they not, to have the powers of investment of a private trustee? If this Bill were passed they would be given those powers. There has been a little discussion about a drafting point but it is only a drafting point. I think I am right, but it does not matter, at this stage at any rate.
Taking the Bill as that and with that effect, I ask, why does anybody oppose it? It seems at first sight to be horse sense and one sees no reason why anyone should oppose it. It does not oblige anybody to use these powers in the least. The question whether they should be used at all, and if so when, how and to what extent, is all left completely at large and at the discretion of the National Debt Commissioners. My Lords, let us just deal with that slightly absurd body. The
800
National Debt Commissioners operate under an Act of 1818. They were constituted earlier, but by that Act any three of them are allowed to do the business of the Commissioners as a whole, and the operative three—there is no doubt or denial about this—are the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank. If your Lordships can distinguish them you are doing something which those who write our Statutes succeeded in doing, but that seems to me to have no reality whatsoever; and therefore I regard the National Debt Commissioners as identical with the Treasury.
They have an office in the City and they share it with the Public Works Loan Commissioners. When you try to find out who they are, there is an extraordinary silence in all the ordinary books of evidence. They have this peculiarity: that if the Lord Chief Justice, for instance, who is one of them, wanted to resign, so far as I can see he could not do so except by ceasing to be Lord Chief Justice or getting an Act passed to remove him. They last met in 1860 under the chairmanship of Mr. Gladstone. I can imagine —but I am not going to take up the time of the House in discussing it—the kind of thing that Mr. Gladstone may have said to them. They had been set up to reduce the National Debt and obviously they had failed to do so; and I should think that Mr. Gladstone used some quite strong language about them and then went away and saved a few more candle-ends himself. There it was, at any rate, and there they are; one of the absurdities of the British Constitution—which contains quite a lot.
I have given your Lordships the early history. The next thing, and this I think is very nearly all I need mention by way of history, is this. It has recently transpired in connection with other proceedings —which are the subject of a Bill in the other House and therefore I cannot go into them—that about 1957 the Treasury was thinking of doing something, not about this particular Bill but about a point remarkably like it. This happened, too, at the same time as the Radcliffe Committee on the management of the monetary system. The Radcliffe Committee asked the Treasury witnesses some questions—rather awkward questions but very few of them. I referred to them when this matter was under discussion in May,

801
1968, and I shall not do so again. I think that the position was fairly summarised by my noble friend Lord Beswick who, I understand, is going to reply. What the Treasury witnesses did, he said, was to put up two sets of considerations which the Treasury ought to take in mind in investing these funds. One was the interest of the contributors and the other was the general national interest.
I am a little critical of that statement and I will return to it in a moment. But we are dealing with very large sums of money—£1,100 million or £1,200 million, invested in securities which are now worth between £800 million and £900 million. The loss of them—a paper loss, I agree, until they are realised—is a matter of £350 million. My Lords, £80 million has actually been lost by realisations. All this is the result, not of any stupidity of the Treasury—I would not have the impertinence to suggest that; it is the result, as I see it, of the two clauses, in the 1946 Act and now in more recent legislation, which obliges them to buy gilt-edged securities. They put the short-dated ones, quite naturally and properly, into the Insurance Fund, which is much smaller, and they keep the long-dated ones in the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund. It does seem a staggering amount of irredeemable and long-dated securities, and it is not altogether surprising that more than one-third of it has disappeared in the course of years. My noble friend will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I am not sure that the detail of these figures matters. The point is that what has happened is what nowadays one can be pretty certain will happen if you tie up a lot of money in long-dated gilt-edged securities; they depreciate a lot. I think I mentioned £80 million, but if I did not I say it now; a figure of £80 million is given as actual losses on realisation. They have kept many of the more difficult groups of securities on which there are far larger paper losses.
My Lords, I find this rather a staggering figure and I find the whole business extremely puzzling. The last time this matter was discussed my noble friend did two things which, if I had answered him —I was not then going to take up the time of the House—I should rather have objected to. I hope that he will not do them again. The first point is this. There
802
really is a point in giving powers in a case like this without trying to tell people whether or when to use them. The point is a simple one. I am sure that I know much less about it than the Treasury do and it is much better to leave it to them to judge. Why do they object to being given powers without any obligation about using them? My Lords, I am afraid I can guess the answer. When a Government Department takes this line, even if it be the Treasury, it is because powers will carry responsibilities; and these powers would carry responsibilities, there is no doubt about it. The Treasury would have to think about it, whether or not in fact they ought to keep this amount of contributors' money in this form and where are they going to stop.
I do not know what is going to happen to the gilt-edged market and I am sure that they do not either. We are told that it is to prop up the gilt-edged market and the national finances. All I can say is that the gilt-edged market has been dropping steadily and it is far lower now than it was when the clauses were introduced in 1946 when the Government of the day could borrow at 3 per cent. Now the Government have to pay 9 per cent. to borrow and I cannot tell if it is going to stop or not. But to tie the hands of the Department seems to me to be quite wrong. Then it is said that they want to do this to support the gilt-edged market. My Lords, there is another point about that, and this is the one that really troubles me; I do not know whether it troubles my noble friend or not. I think it is immoral to get contributions on what Minister after Minister has said was a contributory scheme and then, when you come to invest them, to do so in such a way that you rank the general management of the monetary system with the benefit to contributors. If I wanted anything out of the National Insurance Fund I should regard it as rather a poor excuse if I could not have it because at the moment it was engaged in propping up Consols. I cannot think that that is right.
This moral dilemma has led me into the most awful difficulties. I got into the Treasury the other day—I had never been there in my life—and I went down a long corridor with a lot of doors. There was no indication as to what was behind the doors and I wondered which of the

803
rooms contained the Consolidated Fund. I had forgotten to bring a wheelbarrow; obviously I would have needed one— "pinching" on a small scale would probably have had no effect, except that I might have got into a lunatic asylum or prison; but if it were done on a large enough scale a case could be made out for it. What has been happening here, so far as I know, is that the Treasury—and I am referring to the institution and not to any particular people—is misappropriating contributions in order to try to prop up the national monetary position, and it is making an awful mess of it. I should like my noble friend to explain to me what difference it would have made if they had invested this money in some other way. I need not go into details because I am not here to advertise stockbrokers. But it puzzles me.
What would happen? This Fund is rarely used because it has a sizeable National Insurance Fund in front of it in constant use, and if there was such a mess of the finances of National Insurance that there had to be Parliamentary intervention, the Minister would explain. He may or may not ask to draw on the Reserve funds, but he is just as fully entitled to get Parliamentary sanction to draw on the Consolidated Fund.
After this fiction about the wheelbarrow, I came to the conclusion that there were grave doubts about the existence of the Consolidated Fund; that there probably was not such a thing— it was a book entry somewhere or other. But if this had been a book entry not so much money would have been lost. I do not quite see what purpose this Fund is serving. I must not go on any further because it is beyond the scope of what I am putting forward as a Bill, and I must try not to be a crashing bore, as one can be on a thing of this kind. If there is the Consolidated Fund behind us, as there must be, is this not exactly like the case which the Public Accounts Committee had before them a month or two ago, in which one Tory Member (no names, no pack drill) at the end of the day said that there was no use in having that fund—he was talking about an insolvency fund—when the Consolidated Fund was there all the time. That may be a solution; I do not know. But
804
I feel strongly that to misappropriate contributors' money in the way it is being misappropriated here is morally wrong. I know that my noble friend Lord Beswick will not agree, but I feel no doubt about it myself.
This is a case in which Parliament ought to intervene. One cannot do much with a Private Member's Bill, but this is one form of intervention. There may be a better one. We cannot go on like this, holding these securities on a falling market, because we are obliged to do so by a Statute passed over twenty years ago at the end of the War. We cannot go on holding them and nothing else. It is too silly for words.
I would recall one other thing to your Lordships' attention. The Treasury began thinking about this matter in 1957. They have taken about 12 years to make up their minds. They stoutly assert that they have been thinking about it all the time. I made some inquiries. The longest period of gestation of any living creature is that of the elephant, which takes 19 to 21 months. That is nothing to the Treasury. I tried to find out about dinosaurs because I thought that there was some resemblance between dinosaurs and the Treasury. Unfortunately, we do not know enough about dinosaurs; but such evidence as there is shows that the dinosaur's period of gestation is comparatively short. They are probably beaten by the elephant; they are certainly beaten by the Treasury.
I understand that the Treasury got so far as to draft a Bill. I do not know what they did with it, but they have it somewhere. Their answer, given in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee, is that they never got a Government to take it up. I daresay that is true; it is the sort of idiotic thing that does happen. But it is idiotic and it has its human repercussions. When we come to consider what benefits are to be given or contributions to be levied, the existence of this Fund has a certain importance. I should like to see some action taken to avoid its being misused in the way I think it is being misused at present. I hope I have kept my moving of this Bill short. I have tried to. It is certainly a frightfully dry subject, but I have been living with it for a long time

805
and thinking about it, and I still think that the present state of affairs is wrong. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Mitchison.)
5.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mitchison has put forward his argument with his eyes twinkling and made us all laugh, but all the same he deployed his argument in favour of the Bill in a very logical way. My noble friend put forward a plea for what seems to me to be an almost unanswerable case. It is the permissive character of this Bill which appeals to me and which I find so effective, and in our permissive age perhaps this might not be so inappropriate. The Bill places no compulsion upon the National Debt Commissioners or upon the Treasury or their advisers. It merely provides the opportunity, at present denied to them, for the same freedom of action as others have. In other words, if the Bill becomes an Act, it will allow them to employ their common sense.
Looking back at almost 35 years in the City, until retiring at the end of last month, I think the thing that helped me most in offering advice to trustees and other investors was the advent of the 1961 Trustee Investments Act, and credit must be given to the Conservative Government at that time for finding time to allow for its passage through Parliament. I will always associate that Act with an old friend of mine and of my father, the late Lord Nathan. He had great wisdom in these matters and the Act was very much his baby. It began as a permissive Act. There was no compulsion, but it enabled one to use one's judgment and experience and made it possible to recover lost capital values for many trustees and investors.
It is argued, as my noble friend Lord Mitchison has said, that if one gave the National Debt Commissioners these powers there would be no support for the gilt-edged market. But I do not think there is very much in this proposition. In the first place, I doubt whether any noble Lord would disagree with me when I say that I think the gilt-edged market has already reached a pretty base level; and secondly, it is not by any means always a good time to go into the equity market.
806
There are many opportunities for profitable excursions into the gilt-edged market, especially since the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his infinite wisdom, had the foresight to remove the inhibiting and long-term capital gains tax from the field of gilt-edged investments in the last Budget, thus freeing the market and restoring a degree of activity not seen since the introduction of this unpopular form of taxation by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer some few years ago. If the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking for suggestions, I would invite him to remove the short-term gains tax from the gilt-edged market, too. That would indeed have a dramatic effect upon values.
It is worth remembering that in 1934, when I began work in the City, 3½ per cent. War Loan stood at 109, and 2½per cent Consols stood at about 94. So the late Mr. Dalton should not get all the blame for failure to maintain a cheap money policy. What I am trying to say is that the advisers to the Trustees should use their judgment in applying the Act, bearing in mind the timing and prospects of their transactions. It is not a question of creeping nationalisation, though this may be a fear in some quarters. The State has many equity holdings already. It holds 50 per cent. of the British Petroleum Company, to say nothing of the shipbuilding investments, for which everybody is profoundly grateful. I hope that the Government will not block this Bill. It deserves a better fate than that, in my opinion. It will do no harm, and might do more good than even my noble friend Lord Mitchison expects.
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I had not even seen Lord Mitchison's Bill until I came into your Lordships' House to-day and took it out of the pigeon hole in the Prince's Chamber. It immediately interested me very much, and listening to the speeches of the noble Lord is always a pleasure. I do not think it is for me to try to expound how the Government keep their accounts of these various funds; it is very complicated, and some of the funds are not quite as solid as the noble Lord might imagine; they are more likely to be in two dimensions on a sheet of paper. But I think

807
I can safely leave that point to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
What interests me is the moral point raised by the noble Lord. If there is a moral point here, I think it goes much further back. The real point is that we ought to strive harder than we are doing to keep prices stable. The result of the long frittering away of the value of our money is that all classes of people are beginning to lose confidence in money as a store of value. In my view, this is very serious. I was surprised the other day when my noble friend Lord Amory, in making an excellent speech in the debate on the gracious Speech, said that there were three objects of Government —first, the balance of payments; secondly, full employment; and thirdly, stable prices—and that nobody had been able to get all three together. But he thought that if he had to give priority to one object it would be the balance of payments. It appears to me that if prices were kept stable we would not have to worry about the balance of payments, and that keeping prices stable is the priority object of a civilised economic policy.
I think it is very serious when the Government themselves are encouraging people to lose confidence in their own paper—in national gilt-edged securities—and to go over into ordinary shares. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that in the evidence tendered to the Radcliffe Commission by the Treasury they said that when they invested these funds one of the considerations was that their policy should be in the national interest. To knock your own market in the national interest—which would be the effect of diverting funds invested in Government securities into ordinary shares—is a very doubtful proposition. My own view is that the continuing fall in Government securities is something that we ought to worry about much more than we do. Naturally, there is no cure for this except confidence that prices will remain more stable than they have done in the past. That is the way to protect the contributor. It is not only the contributor to the insurance fund that we have to protect, but all people who in some way or other make provision for themselves, their families and their future in money terms. Even if you take out an insurance policy and insure your life for a certain sum
808
of money you make a contract, and when that money comes to be paid, whether you are still alive or not, it may buy much less, and what you thought was security is not security.
I think this is the fundamental problem. Whether it is to be put into a class of moral problems or not I leave to your Lordships to decide, but it is something to which we should pay attention. We ought not to encourage people to feel that the only way of preserving their stake in the country is to have something that will go up when money goes down. Therefore, I am not in favour of this Bill on fundamental grounds. I think it could be shown to be not quite as useful as the noble Lord thinks it would be if the noble Lord who is to reply gave a short survey of how the Government keep their accounts.
5.27 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I rise merely to indicate that the view on this side of the House is not necessarily that of my noble friends Lord Mitchison and Lord Addison. There is another point of view, and I should like to express it, although I fear that most of the wind has been taken out of my sails by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. This is really a non-Panty question, because Governments of both complexions have been investing insurance money in this manner for many years past. My noble friend Lord Mitchison said that this is the third time that he has raised the question. I hope that it will be third time unlucky, as it was unlucky on the first and second occasions.
My noble friend has given us an interesting historical review of national finance and national debt finance. I wish that he had told us exactly what Gladstone did say in 1860, because many of us have been waiting for years to know what it was. But we are not concerned with Gladstone. We are concerned with the conditions that exist to-day, with the fluctuating and sometimes unsound monetary policies as they exist all over the world. Naturally, equity investment has some attractions. For a number of years I had executive responsibility of investing for a big county council; and I am to-day the treasurer of a university, where I similarly have responsibility for investment. Under the latitude that has been allowed by the Trustee Act 1961, one puts

809
a fair amount of one's money into equities. But one must not be blindfold and one must realise that equities have a habit of going down as well as going up, as we have seen over the last six to eight months.
I think the basic question here is whether we should use this Government money—because it is Government money, although it has been contributed by the people under legislation which requires them to do so—to give support to the gilt-edged market whenever it is felt that this is necessary; and the Government would be lacking in their duty if they did not make use of the funds in their possession to give that support. I know it can be argued that the gilt-edged market should be able to support itself if the national economy is on a sufficiently sound basis. But at the moment, and for some years past, we have had fluctuating monetary conditions throughout the whole world. It is not surprising if the gilt-edged market is probably not able to sustain itself without outside help. If the insurance fund were found to be suffering very severely because of the way in which this money was invested, it would be upon the Exchequer to make a supplementary grant to that fund. It might be a pity if it were found to be needed in that way, but to make a grant of that kind would not be so serious a matter as would be the withdrawal of the support which remains ready to come to the aid of the gilt-edged market.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, one question before he speaks. It concerns a matter with which I hope he will deal—indeed I feel certain that he will deal with it. I should like to know about something which both noble Lords on the other side have mentioned. As I understand it, there are in the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund two sides: first, funds which were taken over from the old Fund, and, secondly, funds which represented the Government's contributions, the Government's counterpart largely, in the early stages of the National Insurance Fund. This has some real importance. If I remember correctly, it was not a question of the contribution of National Insurance contributors being taken and put into this Reserve Fund, because that went into the National Insurance Fund.
810
It was the necessity, a statutory necessity, at the time for the Government to make contributions to the Fund. The contributions they were to make to the Fund were calculated on a much higher rate of unemployment than actually proved to be the case after the war. So one had this surplus arising. I am asking this question purely because I do not think it right that this can really be said to have arisen from the contributions of the National Insurance contributors. It was always Government money that was paid into this Fund, because it was their statutory duty to pay it into the Fund.
5.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mitchison, has introduced his Bill (as we all thought he would) in a most attractive and very good-humoured way. We have had a quite fascinating discussion, and a discussion on this topic of money cannot fail to be fascinating. Looking around the Chamber, seeing the expression on some of the faces of the noble Lords, as they discussed the prospects for the gilt-edged and equity market, was quite an interesting exercise.
The purpose of the Bill, aside from some of the wider discussions we have had— and I shall not be expected to pursue all that has been said—is to give the National Debt Commissioners the powers to invest which are conferred by Sections 1 to 6 of the Trustee Investments Act. This goes a good deal beyond the scope of what I understood my noble friend originally suggested in relation to the National Insurance (Reserve) Fund. The Bill we are now considering would seem to cover the whole powers of the Commissioners, and to extend, for example, to the investment of savings bank funds. Even assuming that the objectives of my noble friend were acceptable, it is open to very considerable doubt whether modification of the Trustee Investments Act is the correct way to achieve what he sets out to do. The Trustee Investments Act, as my noble friend Lord Addison will agree (and I should like to join with him in the tribute he paid to the late Lord Nathan), is basically designed to ensure the proper management of funds by the least skilled of trustees. It would not seem to be appropriate to use this Act in connection with the

811
National Debt Commission, the active members of which (and despite the difficulty which my noble friend Lord Mitchison has, as he goes down the corridors of the Treasury) are the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor of the Bank of England and the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. I would hardly have said that these were the least skilled of trustees.
Moreover, although the largest funds for which the Commissioners are responsible are the Insurance Funds and the deposits of the Ordinary Departments of the National Savings Banks and the Trustee Savings Bank, there are in addition several smaller funds which would be affected. All have their investment policy carefully defined, either by statute or by regulation. If amendment was required to any one, or even all, of these funds, it should be done in a much more specific way than by this Bill. I am submitting that it would be inadvisable to allow this Bill to get on to the Statute Book because its form—quite apart from any other argument—is quite clearly unsuitable for its purpose. But I realise that my noble friend would wish the purpose of the Bill to be considered, even though the Bill itself was unacceptable.
My Lords, I answered a good many of my noble friend's misconceptions when we had a discussion on May 6, 1968, and I do not want to go over all the ground again. But I must re-emphasise the point that those contributing to the pensions and other insurance schemes have not suffered at all by reason of the funds being invested in gilts. I quite understand my noble friend's concern about pensions, pensioners and pension funds. Of course their interests must be protected. But public sector funds are quite different in purpose and character from private sector pension and insurance funds. The fact that the National Insurance Funds have been invested in gilt-edged securities makes no difference, one way or other, to the level of pensions or other benefits. The level of these, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland said, is determined by the Government of the day in the light of considerations quite different from the income earned by any investments. A Government will recommend, and Parliament will approve, or otherwise, a proposed level of benefit,
812
determined in the light of the needs of the pensioners, and other beneficiaries, and related to the state of the economy generally. It has no relation whatsoever to whatever income they may receive from this Fund. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Insurance Funds contributors have in any way lost money by virtue of the investment of surpluses in Government securities.
It could be argued that the existence of the Funds merely reflects the way in which past surpluses of income over expenditure in one part of the public sector have been accounted for, and the investment of the Funds in gilt-edged is little more than one of several possible accounting devices. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, when they wound up the old scheme what was in the surplus at that time was put into this Fund. Subsequently, any money coming into the so-called Insurance Fund is little more than money passing through a current account. There is no real Fund in this at all; indeed, is is a misnomer to use the word "Fund": and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will agree with this. It is very much a two-dimensional matter.
There are two other points that I would submit for consideration, and they have been touched on by both the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, and my noble friend Lord Leatherland. The funds under the control of the National Debt Commissioners are of such a size that it is impossible to consider their investment policy without taking into account the Government's economic and financial policy generally. The National Insurance Funds, as my noble friend said, together comprise some £1,650 million of assets but the Savings Banks funds are considerably more than that, and amount to something like £3,000 million. Obviously, we have to consider what would be the effect of a move by which the Government sold some of its holdings in gilt-edged and invested them in equities. The immediate effect would be that the price of gilts would fall and equity prices would rise. The Government would still have to borrow, and the money lost by the sale of stock in the public sector funds would have to be found from elsewhere in the market. This would further depress the price of gilts and the Government would have to

813
sell even more debt in order to raise the same amount of money. At the same time, large purchases of equities by the Commissioners would put large sums of purchasing power into the hands of the private sector and have serious repercussions on the control of money supply. If that were done, then other Government action would be needed: tighter controls on credit or the sale of further long-term debt to the private sector.
It can be seen, therefore, that my noble friend is getting into very deep waters indeed. Incidentally, even if we took his own criteria about benefiting this hypothetical, as one might almost call it, insurance fund, it is not certain that their interests would have been protected had action been taken in the last year or so to invest in equities. Supposing 20 per cent.—and I think my noble friend Lord Addison, with his great experience, would suggest that probably if you are going to have a fund, 20 per cent. in equities as against 8 per cent. in gilts is not an unreasonable proportion—had been invested in equities a year ago. The Financial Times 500 Share Index at that time was about 176; it has now declined by some 19 per cent. If the sums had been invested at the end of January when the Index was about 194, the decline since then would have been even greater, 26 per cent.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening for one moment. I also pointed out that the advisers to the trustees would be using their common sense and justice.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I shall come on to that point later. What my noble friend is saying is that if there was a power he would not expect them to have used it in recent circumstances. I quite accept that. But I am pointing out that if my noble friend is talking about the loss to the Insurance Fund contributors, this loss would certainly have taken place if any movement had occurred in the last year from gilts into equities. The market value of the Fund would indeed have been 4 per cent. lower now than it was a year ago if only 20 per cent. of the gilt-edged holdings had been switched into equities. Clearly, over this recent year my noble friend
814
would not appear as the untarnished champion of the Insurance Fund contributor.
But he says—and my noble friend Lord Addison says again—that they are only asking for powers; not making it obligatory to invest 20 per cent. or any other proportion, but only seeking permission. This is the point. But it would be reasonable to expect that if permission were given it would be used. If there was any expectation of any movement at all into gilts at the present time, if the Government appeared to be making this decision now to give power, then the effect would be very serious indeed on the gilt-edged market.
My Lords, in any other debate, and not in the context of this Bill, I would not disagree with my noble friends about the value to the nation as a whole of the Government's moving into equities. I am in favour of this. I have always wanted us to increase our collective stake in the national asset. I want the British people as a whole to share in the economic growth. If there is to be any depreciation of money, then the more that ownership of goods is widely shared, the better for social justice. But I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that we shall never get social justice if we lose confidence in money. It would be quite wrong here to do anything that would undermine the general acceptance of the value of Government securities.
If we want to move into equities, if we want to increase the national holding of industrial shares, then it is conceivable that there are other effective ways of applying such a policy. For example, there is the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation and the use of measures under the Industrial Expansion Act. But I cannot advise that the Bill which is now before us is the right way to seek what basically I think my noble friend is after; and I cannot advise the House to accept it. On the other hand, although it is a small Bill, it is an important matter and I think it would be wrong to have a decision or a Division taken by a House which possibly was not quite so representative as the importance of the subject demands. I would not, therefore, try to contest my noble friend if he wished to press this matter.
5.46 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I reply quite shortly? I said in the debate in May that there were always three stages in persuading the Treasury about anything. The first was that you raised the subject, and they said you had done it quite well. The second was that you raised it and they said there was something in what you said, but not much. And the third was that they brought it in themselves and said how bright it was of them to have thought of it. I earnestly hope that the friendly words at the end of my noble friend's speech were an indication of some possibility of that process being completed at a later date.
As to the arguments, I would say only one thing. I listened very carefully to all of them, and not quite all but most of them were directed to the wisdom or not of buying equities. I did not venture to express any opinion about that at all. I merely said that the very expert people—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Governor and the Deputy Governor of the Bank—ought to be given the opportunity to do so if they wanted to. It is not true that the population of the country and the contributors to the National Insurance Fund are the same people. One has only to count them. There are about 55 million people in the country, and the people on whose behalf contributions are paid number about 22 million, and that figure includes the women who come in on their husbands' rights. There it is; they are not the same. Therefore, to that extent I think that the procedure is unfair.
I do not want to press that kind of point now, but I would just quote from what my noble friend said on the last occasion, to show the kind of mistake he fell into. With great respect to him, I think he did so to some extent to-day. He said:
"It is impossible to differentiate between the members of the public whose money the Fund is and the nation, since the nation is made up precisely of those same members of the public".—[OFFICIAL REPORT; 6/5/68, col. 1316.]
It is not, my Lords. There are about twice as many in the nation.
816
May I answer the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am not going to answer him in detail, but I think he will find the answer in Section 84 of the 1965 Act. The fact is that the only source, so far as I know, from which the Reserve Fund is fed is the National Insurance Fund itself; that is to say, it is made up of contributions, including of course some Government contributions. I quite accept that. Lastly may I say this—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry, but may I intervene because I did not answer the point? The Reserve Fund is not now made up from contributions. It was the surplus which at that point of time happened to be existing on the old schemes when they were wound up.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think the short answer is in subsection (5) of the section I quoted, and I will read it:
"There may be transferred from time to time from the National Insurance Fund to the National Insurance Reserve Fund such assets as the Minister"—
that is the Minister of Health and Social Security—
"with the approval of the Treasury. may determine".
There is no dispute about that. After all, it is quite clear. I ought to have made it clearer than I did—I do not think I actually said it and I should have done; and I should like to take this as an instance—that some of the other funds may raise other questions; and I should not object to that. But the object of this Bill is the really not very wicked one of trying to stop the Treasury from going on doing something which I think is both wrong and silly. If they go on doing it I do not know where they will stop; and as for ruining the gilt-edged market, I just do not believe it. This amount of money will not make any difference. It is a question of dealing with it carefully and the extent to which we do it. But those are all questions that I would not venture to answer. Finally, may I thank your Lordships most warmly and sincerely for listening to a subject that is rather dull.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CALDERDALE WATER BILL [H.L.]
5.51 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, I should like to remind your Lordships briefly about its procedural history. This Bill, which was opposed by five petitioners, was introduced into this House in the last Session of Parliament and was debated on Second Reading on February 25. On that occasion the House approved an Instruction to the Committee that was to consider the Bill. That Instruction directed the Committee to give special consideration to two matters: the need for additional supplies of water, and the availability of alternative sources. The Select Committee sat for 12 days and visited the site of the proposed reservoir. They made a Special Report which has been available to the House since July 21, in which they advised the House that the Bill should be allowed to proceed. My Lords, I think that is all I need to say by way of explaining the procedural history of the Bill since it was introduced into this House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
5.53 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it was suggested to me, who had the honourable but somewhat invidious task of being the Chairman of that Select Committee, which consisted of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, the noble Lords, Lord Clwyd, Lord Foot, Lord Granville-West, myself, Lord Rankeillour and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, ably helped by Mr. Mitchell, the Clerk of the Committee, that I should say a few words to fill in any gaps, if there arc any, in the Report we wrote. The Bill arises as a result of the existing and expected increase in short-fall in water supplies of the Calder group of water supplies—Calderdale, Wakefield, Mid-Calder and Huddersfield. The figures of shortage were agreed upon by the Promoters and the Petitioners alike. It was also agreed that pending the arrival of large bulk supplies into the West Riding, expected in the 1980s, adequate relief could be found only from the Calder Valley catchment where the Hebden
818
water and the Calder water are the only streams which are not being fully exploited at present. So in fact the only difference between the two sides was one of method: how to get the water.
The Committee sat for 12 days and heard evidence ably given by water engineers, landscape experts, geologists and, of course, amenity lovers. I think the Report we wrote gives a fair résumé of the arguments, and I assume all of your Lordships have read it. The Promoters' scheme appeared to be much more workmanlike and credible than the alternatives put forward by the Petitioners. The latter carried several important areas of doubt which could not be resolved except in practice: for instance, how strict or how lax would the river authority be in their duty to improve the condition of the rivers in their charge when they came to fix the minimum flow figures; how strong would be the opposition to the flooding of the farms in the Culden Valley; what would be the extra delay involved? I think all the members of the Committee accepted that the Promoters' scheme was the superior: the question at issue was whether the amenity factor was such as to make it imperative to accept that the Petitioners' scheme, or some unnamed scheme, must be preferred in spite of the probable extra delay and probable lower yield of water. That is where there was a division of opinion in the Committee.
On Tuesday, June 24—luckily a fine day—five of us visited the scene. One of the ultimate majority and one of the ultimate minority were not able to come on that day. The wooded part of the valley reminded me of some of the Cornish valleys around Bodmin Moor, and the moorland part resembled the steep-sided coombes one finds in the West Country. The wooded part is almost unique in that part of the world, but the moorland part must have many counterparts in the Pennine Chain. I should have liked to walk from bottom to top of the valley but was told that there was no time as the going was rough and slow. So three of us started half-way up the wooded part and two walked back the easier path from the top, at Blake Dean, to join us. We had noted parking places for coaches at the bottom of the valley. We had previously seen i he confluence of the Hebden Water and the Calder River

819
and had seen that the volume of the Hebden was not very impressive.
On our walk we passed the gauge on the Hebden Water and noticed that the flow was about double the minimum flow, and this made one wonder how far the river authority would go if they were pressed to allow in the Hebden a flow less than they had agreed for the Promoters' scheme. One must remember that the yield of the alternative scheme depended on a lowering of this minimum. The path beside the stream was very rough; it was no path for Mum and the picnic basket. I was on the look-out for signs of human activity, and so long as the path was in the woods I saw no litter at all, and hardly a footprint. Indeed I should be surprised if there was much through traffic at all. When we left the trees the path was good and we found more signs of life in the shape of cigarette cartons, et cetera. At the top of the valley we found two coach loads of children from a school playing where the feeding moorland streams enter the moorland valley. There is just room for two coaches there, and it is a good picnic spot used by schools. The general conclusion one got was that there was good picnicking at the bottom and the top of the valley but the rest was not very accessible to family parties. But of course it is a nice walk for the energetic.
Then we had to consider the effect of the Promoters' scheme on these amenities. The picnickers who park at the bottom of the valley would not be affected at all. Secondly, the long-range walkers, instead of debouching from the trees into a moorland valley would be faced by a terraced 1 in 3 slope, covered by trees, and at the top would follow the footpath going either side of the new man-made lake, about 300 yards wide, on which at certain times of the year they might see sailing and boating but no bathing or power boats. They would then go on to join the Pennine Way, as they do at present. The only people to lose would be those who picnic at the top end of the moorland valley called Blake Dean. Most of us thought that if the local authority chose to provide parking space, then the foot of the dam would provide a very pleasant alternative to this latter place, improved as it might be by certain suggestions in design put
820
forward by one of the Committee and nicknamed the "Shannon Basin". In fact, the foot of the dam might be less draughty than Blake Dean. The lake will attract people for sailing and in this way satisfy a public want. There appears to be no limit these days to the amount of water which can be used for pleasure purposes. I do not believe that the lake will be very obtrusive. One will either have to get close to it or go above it, further up into the hills, to see it at all.
The schemes of the Petitioners are described at some length in the Report. They propose to use the same water as the Promoters, but in a different way, and the consequent shortfall would be made up by tapping the Rochdale Canal and lowering the minimum flow in Hebden Water. Both of these, it seemed to the majority if not all of the Committee, were rather doubtful propositions. An essential of the alternative scheme is a dam across the Culden Valley which would drown important farmland and buildings, and presumably would be opposed by farmers, with all the delay that that implies.
All in all, my Lords, after an exhaustive hearing, the majority of your Lordships' Committee thought the Promoters' scheme so much more to be preferred as to overcome the amenity case, You cannot have water storage without altering the landscape; and in this case you would, in effect, be exchanging half-a-mile of moorland valley, wooded at one end, for a lake which will give much pleasure to many young people. Moreover, you will be doing this without destroying anybody's home or livelihood. There is one weekend cottage, I believe. involved; no farms; just a little bit of pasture and some rough grazing. You will be leaving intact what has come to be known as the Hardcastle Crags—in other words, the wooded valley before it turns West to thin out into the moorland valley—and I do not think the people who use this main part of the valley will be prejudiced in the least. After full consideration, the majority of the Committee thought that the Promoters' scheme should proceed.
6.4 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has indicated, the decision reached by the Select Committee in considering this matter was not a

821
unanimous decision. There was a minority view, and as one of the minority I trust that it will be thought proper and permissible for me to indicate briefly to the House why I felt unable, reluctantly, to agree with the remainder of my colleagues, all except one. This was a very difficult inquiry, at least for me; this was my first experience of sitting upon such a Select Committee. As the noble Lord has said, we had a hearing which extended over some 12 days and in which we had to consider matters of great detail, of technical detail and technical difficulty. I am bound to say that I found the task we had been set a difficult one to carry through.
But our task was made easier, I thought, by reason of the Instruction that we had received from this House on Second Reading, because there were implicit in that Instruction the three matters to which the House wanted us to direct our attention. The first thing we were to consider was the high amenity value of the existing valley. The second thing we were asked to do was to consider whether the case that there was a need for additional supplies of water had been made out. The third thing we were asked to do was to consider whether there might be some viable and practical alternative to the proposal contained in the Bill. Perhaps I may deal with those three questions in order.
On the question of amenity, it is of course always an almost insoluble conundrum to try to weigh the considerations of amenity against other considerations, such as public need for water, the cost of obtaining it, and the rest. It is an equation in which the symbols are different on each side of the equation. This matter of how much importance is attached to preserving a particular piece of the countryside is necessarily primarily a matter of subjective judgment. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, what impression this place made upon him. I suppose that in this matter of the amenity value of a piece of countryside our judgment is a matter of prejudice and predilection, and it is unlikely that anybody is going to be very much shifted by argument, however persuasive it may be.
But one of the things that was urged upon us by some of the Petitioners against this Bill on this question of amenity was that it is not entirely a subjective matter;
822
there is an objective test which can be applied. The objective test is to look at the identity of the opponents and the quality and the nature of the opposition which the scheme has attracted. And I am bound to say that I found on this occasion that the opposition which had been brought to bear was indeed formidable. It consisted, first of all, of the noble Lord, Lord Savile, in whose family this area of land has been vested for many generations, and it was perfectly evident that Lord Savile had not come to petition against this Bill from any private interest of his own but simply because he was gravely concerned about what he thought would be the damage done to the public interest if this valley were sacrificed.
Then we had what I might properly describe as the passionate opposition of the National Trust, who are now the owners of a substantial part of the area affected. We also had the opposition of the Hardcastle Crags Preservation Committee, a committee of local residents which had been set up some years before with the express object of trying to preserve this valley inviolate against reservoirs and things of that kind. Then we had the opposition of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and, finally—and this I think was significant—the opposition of the Hebden Rural District Council. In my experience it is not always the case that when these questions of amenity are being considered those raising them get the support of the local authority, who may be looking over their shoulders and thinking about rateable values and matters of that kind.
Those were the Petitions, my Lords. But behind them, buttressing the opposition to this Bill, there was a veritable host of other organisations—amenity organisations, open-air organisations, recreational organisations—which came forward in support of the opposition to this scheme. It seemed to me that it was properly urged upon us by the Petitioners that in considering this amenity question, and what importance we ought to attach to the preservation of this valley, we ought to have due regard to the weight of the opposition which it had in fact attracted. I was left in no doubt that this proposal was regarded with the gravest possible concern by those people who knew the place best, and those people who lived in and around it.

823
If I may turn from that to the second question, the question of need, as the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, has said there was substantial agreement among all members of the Committee, and indeed between the Promoters and the Petitioners, that the need had been made out. There was some difference of opinion as to the extent of the need, when the need might become effective, and things of that kind, but nevertheless there was agreement that there was a need. But I think it is important to recognise exactly what the nature of the need was, because it was conceded by all parties that this scheme is a short-term scheme. This reservoir, and the supply of water that it will give, is a short-term scheme intended only to meet the need, or the possible need, of the Calderdale group of undertakings between 1974 and 1981, or possibly 1982, and it was agreed by all parties that once the year 1982 had been reached this scheme would be inadequate and further supplies from some other source would inevitably be required. That being so, and this scheme being only what might perhaps be described, and was described, as a "stop gap" scheme to fill a short period of time, the onus resting upon the Promoters to satisfy us that there was no reasonable alternative to the—I will not say the destruction of this valley, but the complete alteration of this valley involved in this scheme, it seemed to me that the burden upon the Promoters of satisfying us that that was the case was all the heavier.
That brings me to the third question which we were invited to consider, and that was the question of whether there was indeed any viable, practicable alternative to that which was contained in the Bill. A whole variety of different possibilities, different alternatives, were put up by the Petitioners who canvassed before us, but I think it will be agreed —and indeed this is contained in the Report—that as the argument proceeded, and as the hearing went on, the concentration of everybody was really directed upon a scheme which I think is described in the Report as Scheme No. 4. This was the front runner; this was the candidate which, if any alternative was going to prevail, was obviously most likely to succeed.
824
But there were two curious and very unsatisfactory circumstances attendant upon this particular scheme. The first was that this scheme, this alternative, only emerged in the course of the hearing before the Committee. Before the Committee started sitting, this alternative scheme which, as I say, became the front runner, had never been heard of. The second curious and unsatisfactory circumstance attending this scheme was that in one particular and crucial matter we were left without the essential information upon which we could come to any certain conclusion.
If I may, I should like to explain to the House how those two difficulties arose. One of the original alternatives, or schemes, which was put up by the Petitioners, consisted of a proposal to build a reservoir and dam in the neighbouring valley, the Calder Valley; to establish an extraction point some way down the river, and then to extract the water supply from the extraction point at a place called Midgehole by taking advantage of the water coming directly through the aqueducts from the existing reservoir and the new reservoir, supplemented by the water coming down the river to the extraction point. But when that proposal was put forward—it had been discussed by the experts on both sides long before the hearing before the Committee—to the surprise of the Petitioners (and indeed, if I may say so, to my surprise) the expert witnesses for the Promoters came up with a quite new objection to this scheme which had never been heard of before. The objection, in the main, was that this scheme, because it involved using river water and reservoir water, would involve difficulties of treatment, and would involve perhaps an expensive process of treatment because, to my surprise —I knew before that oil does not mix with water—I found that water does not mix with water. But apparently that is the case. So when this objection was made, the Petitioners who had put up the proposal conceded that there was some merit in this objection, and they went away and on the following day came back to the Committee with the new amended proposal. What they proposed to do was to pump the water back which had come down the river; that is, pump it back at the extraction point into the reservoirs so that it would then come down

825
having a uniform quality which would eliminate the need of any treatment works at or near the extraction point. And so the proposal which, as I say, became the main candidate as the alternative to the Bill's proposal, was a scheme which had only been evolved overnight, and to which no one had had the opportunity of giving any careful analysis or consideration.
I can only say that I regard that—I do not think anybody is to blame for it—as an extraordinarily unsatisfactory state of affairs, bearing in mind that our Committee had been precisely instructed by this House to consider with every care the alternatives to the Bill's proposal; and in fact the best candidate as an alternative turned out to be a scheme which had never received any detailed analysis for consideration at all.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, if I may I should like to interrupt the noble Lord to say that I think it is only fair to point out that the Committee looked at this scheme in its best possible light. There was no question that they may not have had time to discover in great detail what snags were attached to it. They considered it in the light of what the Petitioners were able to claim for it.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am much obliged, and I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I am not suggesting that the Committee were deficient in their duties—I hope we were not. What I am saying is that here we were presented, as the best possible alternative, with a scheme which was, as it was described in the proceedings, the brainwave of the engineer on behalf of the Petitioners, thought up by him overnight, and I think the noble Lord will agree that that was the case.
This brings me to the second difficulty with which we were confronted; that is to say, we were without an essential piece of information. I should like to explain to the House how that arose. I hope I am not going on too long, but I think these are matters of importance. The Report itself necessarily gives only the view of the majority, and it is important for many interests that my dissenting view should be laid before the House. The second difficulty arose in this way. Under this amenity scheme the Petitioners contended that they would be able to
826
extract at the extraction point at Midge-hole a minimum supply of water of 5·8 million gallons a day, which they considered would be sufficient to meet the stop-gap requirement between the years 1974 and 1981.
It was not, I think, seriously argued by the Promoters that if 5·8 million gallons a day could be extracted at the extraction point then that would not fill the bill. The argument which the Promoters used against this proposal was that if you extracted 5·8 million gallons a day from the extraction point, it would not allow a sufficiency of water to flow below the extraction point to meet the needs of the health of the river, of the riparian owners and of the industrial users below. On the other hand, the Petitioners contended that it would indeed leave a sufficient flow and the argument came down to this. The Petitioners were saying, "All that is needed by way of minimum flow below the extraction point is 5½ million gallons a day", while the Promoters said. "No, that will not do. You must have a minimum flow below the extraction point of no less than 6½ million gallons a day." The essence of the matter was that if the Promoters were right in saying that 6½ million gallons a day was the minimum acceptable flow below extraction point, then that would leave the Petitioners' scheme short of 1 million gallons a day up at the extraction point. The whole issue came down to this: Were the Promoters right or were the Petitioners right?
When you are considering what is an acceptable minimum flow in a river, who is it who has to decide the matter? It is a matter which falls for decision by the river authority, subject to an appeal to the Minister. It is for the river authority to decide, when they are asked to grant a licence for extraction, what minimum acceptable flow must be maintained below the point of extraction. The extraordinary situation, as your Lordships may think, with which we were confronted was this. We could not get any answer as to what the river authority would be prepared to agree to, and the reason why we could not get any answer was because the river authority could not answer a hypothetical question of that kind. The river authority can only make a pronouncement as to what they will regard as a minimum acceptable flow when a positive proposition and

827
scheme is put to them. Then they have to go through certain statutory procedures of consulting with the various interests concerned before they can say what minimum flow is acceptable to them. Therefore, it was quite impossible to ask any question of the river authority's engineer as to what the river authority might be prepared to agree to, because he was in no position to bind his authority in advance. I hope that I have not overstated the matter.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is slightly overstating the matter. I think the figure in our Report was 6·2 million and not 6·5 million, and I think he should say that the river authority had already agreed to give a licence to the Promoters' scheme for a 6·2 million minimum as set out in our Report. So that to reduce the figure below that was the hypothetical question.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be so good as to yield for a moment. The discussion is enthralling, and I know that the House is following it with deep interest, but it is perhaps worth while reminding the House that the details of what was said before the Committee are available in the Records of their proceedings.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am much obliged for that intervention. It so happens that I have in front of me one of the Records of the proceedings, which I am afraid confirms that I am right, and that the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is wrong in saying that the figure which the Promoters said was the minimum figure was 6·2 million. It was not 6·2 million; it was 6·5 million. I was about to quote from the relevant page of the document, because I wanted to quote to the House what was said by counsel for the Promoters about this difficulty in which we found ourselves, of not being able to get any reply from the river authority about the minimum flow. What he said was this:
"It must seem from where your Lordships are sitting to be unsatisfactory in the extreme that a witness was called from the river authority and that neither side felt able to ask him questions on this critical point. I concede that that must be, I apprehend, extremely frustrating and very unsatisfactory."
828
That is what the counsel for the Promoters said, and I am bound to say that I think it was a perfectly accurate statement about the wholly unsatisfactory situation in which we found ourselves.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how much lift there was to raise the water from the extraction point to the reservoir? If it was 200 ft. it would cost 7d. per thousand gallons, and if it was 300 ft. it would cost about 1s. 6d.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I am not capable of entering into a technical discussion of that kind, but I assure my noble friend that this scheme involving pumping back into the reservoir was not in the main attacked by the Promoters upon any question of cost.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: So my noble friend does not know how high it was?
LORD FOOT: No, my Lords. I am afraid I do not know.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think I can supply the figures. The level at which the pumping would be done was in the neighbourhood of 400 ft., and the reservoirs were something of the order of 1,150 ft.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, if I may interrupt this private conversation between my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, may I say that at the end of the day, having given consideration to all these points, I asked myself this question. We were under this Special Instruction from the House to inquire into these alternatives, and a heavy onus rested, as I thought, upon the Promoters to satisfy us that there was no viable alternative. I therefore asked myself: Have the Promoters discharged that burden of proof which rests upon them? I came to the conclusion that they had not done so, for two reasons. One reason was that I thought there had been no sufficient —indeed, scarcely any—examination of what appeared to be the best alternative; and the second reason was that we were able to obtain no authoritative answer about what the river authority would accept by way of minimum flow.
My Lords, I hope that I have not offered these comments in any negative or critical spirit. As I understand it, this

829
Bill will now go to the other place. As I understand it, it is likely to be petitioned against in the other place, and it will then come before a Committee of that House. Is it too much to hope that when it does come before the other place there will then be an opportunity for proper answers to be given to the two questions to which I have sought to draw attention? Surely it ought not to be beyond the procedural powers of these Houses to get some satisfactory answer as to what minimum flow would be acceptable to the river authority. It would surely be a sad and ironic comment upon the procedures of these Houses if this valley, the splendour and natural beauty of which is not really in dispute, were to be sacrificed irretrievably to meet only the short-term need and on the basis of a guess which may be wrong and on the basis of a conjecture which may be entirely unfounded.
My Lords, it had been my intention to go on to make one or two general comments upon the procedures under which this matter is being resolved, but I am sure that I have occupied the time of the House too long to engage upon that now. I would have expressed the hope that these difficult matters, and the disadvantages under which we suffer because of this lack of information, and because there has been no full opportunity to examine the alternative scheme, can be put right in the other place, so that we do not take the risk of losing this valley upon a false premise.
6.32 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, before the Minister rises I think it is appropriate that a few words should be said on behalf of the National Trust, which is so greatly concerned with this Bill. This House is always grateful to those of our number who serve on these Committees, and I am sure we are much indebted for the speech which we have heard from my noble friend Lord Hawke and for the extremely valuable speech which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Lord Foot has stated so admirably the main points that I desire to be considered before such a measure as this Bill is passed into law that I can, I think, be very brief. We have two facts to encourage us to be brief: first, that on this occasion there is, of course, no question that the Bill will be read a third time in this House
830
this afternoon. No one disputes that. Secondly, it will go to another place and come before another Committee for searching examination.
My Lords, I served on the Executive Committee of the National Trust for over thirty years, and some of the property with which this Bill is concerned was given to the National Trust during that period. The National Trust naturally wants the splendid beauty of this valley to be permanently preserved. That is its object in the proceedings, and in pursuing that object it is serving not only its present and future members but everybody concerned with amenities in this country and elsewhere. The extent and nature of that beauty were so well expressed in the full debate that took place on Second Reading, on February 25 of this year, in the speeches of my noble friend Lord St. Oswald and others, that I shall not trouble the House on that subject again.
With all the main points put by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I think that the National Trust is in complete agreement. On the only question that arose between the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Hawke, I think I can point to something that is agreed between them, because it appears in the Special Report itself. That is that, in turning down what became the main alternative proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has explained, the Committee admittedly acted by way of surmise. I do not say that that was their fault, but it is admitted on page 7 of the Report itself. I need not bother to read whole passages, but the matter is not in dispute.
The main alternative, which would have saved this lovely valley in the opinion of the National Trust, was turned down because the Committee made a particular guess in answer to the question that was put before them, namely, whether the river authority would allow a particular flow or not.
If this lovely valley is going to be treated as this Bill proposes, which will involve the destruction of great beauty in the opinion of the various authorities and local authorities mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—if that is to be its fate—I hope that at least that fate will be suffered on the basis of knowledge and not on the basis of a guess, and I

831
hope that the resources of another place and its Committee will be sufficient to obtain this information somehow, so that if we must suffer this destruction then at least its necessity will have been proved and not depend on a guess. This Bill must have a Third Reading to-night, but the case for the most stringent examination in another place is, I submit, overwhelming. I think it would have been overwhelming on the basis of what was said on the last occasion and in the Special Report which is before us, but it has been made absolutely conclusive by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, with which I should like to associate myself.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to answer me this question. Was what has been called Scheme No. 4, which was the scheme eventually rejected because certain information was not forthcoming from the river authority, a scheme which was put forward by the National Trust and the other amenity societies?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on the nature of that I am quite prepared to accept the account which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I cannot expand what he said, which I thought was a fair description on the basis of such knowledge as I have.
6.40 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this Inquiry. I do not want to repeat what I said in my speech on the Second Reading in February to which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has referred, but I should like, as one of the Vice-Chairmen of the National Trust, and also as Vice-President of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, to thank him for what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, properly pointed out that there were three elements in the Instruction which was given to the Select Committee, the first of which is the high amenity value of this valley. It does seem to me, however, after reading this Special Report more than once, and very carefully, that this Report on behalf of the majority— and one must remember that it was a majority of the Committee
832
—really pays insufficient attention to the first of these points, the high amenity value of this particular valley.
It is clear, I think, as your Lordships will agree if you will look at it, that this is the last and most beautiful unspoilt valley in the eastern part of the Pennine Range in Yorkshire. It is described in the Special Report as "a local beauty spot". Those are the words that are used. But it is not a local beauty spot; it is one of the most important pieces of cenic beauty in the whole of England, and the fact that the Bill was petitioned against by the National Trust and also by the Council for the Protection (as it now is) of Rural England underlines its national importance. Speaker after speaker in the debate that we had in February underlined this; and there can be no question about it. If one reads this Report, one sees that witness after witness before the Select Committee (Lord Foot or Lord Hawke will correct me if I am wrong) emphasised the unity of this valley. Its beauty depended on the contrast, of the beautiful woods and slopes with the moorland above and the great crags raising themselves above it.
Yet this Select Committee divided into two and said that it was not really a unity at all, but two sections. This was contradictory to the evidence that they had heard. It does not seem to me that they attached sufficient importance to the outstanding scenic beauty of this place. That being so, it is easy to see how the minds of the majority worked. They balanced the Promoters' scheme against the scheme which was, apparently, to some extent thought up at the last moment by the Petitioners. No doubt the Promoters' scheme is the better of the two schemes. But in the scale of the balance surely the outstanding scenic beauty of the Hardcastle Crags, the woods and the moors ought to have been put in and would have brought the balance down with a bump. That, it seems to me, is the mistake that was made by the majority of this Committee.
The noble Lords, Lord Conesford and Lord Foot, pointed out that this matter will have to be looked at again in another place. I hope that when that is done the real importance of this piece of wonderful scenery will have proper attention attached to it.
6.44 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think the House will wish me to say little. I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and Members of his Committee for the work that they put in on this difficult Bill. We have heard a vivid account from the whole Committee of what the valley looks like, and a lucid and forceful account from a Member of the minority at or near his "maximum acceptable flow" of the reasons the minority had for dissenting from the majority. The Bill will now go to another place where, as several speakers have said, it will be re-examined. The only other point that I should like to make, because I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, heard it while it was being made, is about what my noble friend Lord Chorley has just said. in the Committee Report it is not the valley, as such, which is described as a "local beauty spot", but the Hardcastle Crags. The Report goes on
834
to note that the reservoir will not be visible from Hardcastle Crags.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I would only say, as I have a right of reply, that I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate for the welcome interest they have shown in the Bill, which indeed raises many issues of public importance, all of which have been touched upon in the course of the speeches to which we have listened, I should like also to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, Chairman of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, and all other Members of the Committee for their willingness to shoulder the very heavy burden of work imposed by membership of this Committee. I hope that your Lordships will now be prepared to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  FIREARMS PERMITS
  FIREARMS PERMITS